Dismiss Eight Sleep Alarm

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the gating requirements (explicit user intent and the mutation flag), which the agent must verify before invoking, and also warns that it only acts on an actively ringing alarm. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added gating info meaningfully extends what the structured fields alone would tell the agent.

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 two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the gating constraint. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repeated title information.

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?

With an output schema, safety-relevant annotations, and only four simple parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and invocation prerequisites. What is missing is sibling routing (when to dismiss vs snooze) and the behavioral consequence of dismissing, so the guidance is adequate but has a clear gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with alarm_id and explicit_user_intent already described in the schema itself. The description reinforces the explicit_user_intent gating condition but adds nothing about user_id or response_format, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. It adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented half of the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Dismiss') and a clearly scoped resource ('an actively ringing alarm'), so an agent immediately knows the action and its precondition. The action also distinguishes it from the sibling eight_sleep_snooze_alarm by naming a different operation, so no schema inspection is needed for basic differentiation.

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 gating clause ('Gated by explicit_user_intent: true and EIGHT_SLEEP_ALLOW_MUTATIONS=true') tells the agent the conditions required for the call to succeed, and 'actively ringing' implies when it applies. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use this tool or points to the sibling snooze_alarm as the alternative for a ringing alarm that should be postponed, leaving routing to inference.

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