Snooze contact

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the contact counts as unsubscribed during the snooze and is excluded from every send, that the state reverses automatically on expiry, and that Plunk v0.15+ is required. The reversible, non-destructive framing is consistent with destructiveHint=false and the idempotentHint, with no 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?

Bolded labels make it scannable and the key routing information is front-loaded ahead of the caveats. The conversational asides ('Snoozing is a break, not a goodbye') cost a little density, though they reinforce the when-not guidance.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (the contact with subscription state and snooze expiry date), and covers prerequisites, side effects, and the duration list. An agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum of durations is fully documented in the schema, so the description's parameter value is limited to restating the available durations and the auto-resubscribe behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (pause/snooze) on a specific resource (marketing email to a contact) with a defined scope (fixed period, auto-resubscribe). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — plunk_unsubscribe_contact — so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Not for' exclusion naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('a rest from your email rather than to leave'), plus a 'Use when' trigger. Nothing about when-to-use vs. when-not is left to inference.

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