unsnooze

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses side effects beyond annotations: 'removes the snooze label, restores INBOX'. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these, adding valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second lists side effects. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential effect. However, it omits any mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., thread must be snoozed). Still, given low complexity and presence of output schema, it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter threadId has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond the name. It fails to explain what threadId represents or its format, which is necessary for correct usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'cancel a snooze' and 'return the thread to the inbox', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snooze (the reverse operation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (to cancel a snooze) and mentions side effects, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like mark_read or archive. However, the sibling list includes snooze as the inverse, making usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.