Cancel a snoozed email to wake it immediately and return it to its original folder, even before the scheduled time. Throws if already woken or canceled.
Wake a snoozed email immediately, moving it back to its original folder before wakeAt. No effect (throws) if the snooze has already woken or was already canceled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id returned by snooze_email. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation by explaining the side effect (moving back to original folder) and the error behavior (throws if no longer snoozed). This is transparent about state changes and failure modes.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes necessary edge-case behavior in the second sentence. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, when it throws, and the side effect. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a clear description ('The id returned by snooze_email'). The description does not add extra semantic detail, but none is needed because the schema is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('Wake') and resource ('snoozed email'), and clarifies the action ('moving it back to its original folder before wakeAt'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'snooze_email' by being its inverse.
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?
It clearly implies when to use (when an email is currently snoozed and you want to wake it early) and provides an important boundary condition ('No effect (throws) if already woken or canceled'). However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or mention that re-snoozing can be done with snooze_email.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.