snooze_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens when the future datetime arrives, or how snoozing interacts with other conversation states. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but under-specified, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness flaw.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions. The description covers only the core action and omits side effects, return values, parameter formats, and relationships to sibling tools. Even with an output schema present, the description lacks the necessary context for a state-changing tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds that snooze_until must be a future datetime, which is helpful, but it does not explain the auth-related parameters (email, api_token, member_id) or provide format details for snooze_until. Most parameters are left unspecified.

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 ('Snooze a conversation') and the temporal constraint ('until a future datetime'). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like unsnooze_conversation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_conversation or unsnooze_conversation. There are no prerequisites, context signals, or exclusions mentioned.

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