snooze_email

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the wake timing depends on the server process staying running, and if not, the email wakes on next startup instead. This is essential context for setting expectations and is not available from the annotations or schema.

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 three sentences: the first explains the purpose, the second warns about the process-dependent wake timing, and the third notes cancellation. Every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool has a scheduling nuance and no output schema, but the description covers the key behavioral caveat and cancellation path. It does not explicitly describe the return value or what happens to the email after waking, but this is sufficient 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 descriptions for both parameters (emailId in FOLDER::UID format and wakeAt as ISO 8601). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Move an email out of sight into Folders/Snoozed and bring it back to its original folder at wakeAt.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of bringing it back at wakeAt distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email or archive_email.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (temporary hiding with automatic return) and mentions the related cancellation tool cancel_snooze. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like move_email, but the behavioral description implies the distinction.

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