TODO をスヌーズ

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the suppression effect and that recurring items are scoped to one occurrence. It omits whether auth is required, how it interacts with existing reminders, idempotency, and what value is returned.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler, and the cardinal constraint (until) is front-loaded. It is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic but wastes no words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core timing parameters but omits the id parameter, sibling routing, side effects, and return behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves clear gaps.

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 coverage is 67%; the description restates the until format and clarifies recurring-occurrence behavior, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it leaves id undocumented and its timeZone wording ("TODO の timeZone") conflicts with the schema's "Account の timeZone", which is a minor semantic inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 conveys a specific action and effect—suppressing firing until a given time ("〜まで鳴らさない")—which, with the name snooze_todo, is distinguishable from update_todo or complete_todo. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the siblings (e.g. update_todo, complete_todo). The only usage hint is the recurrence note ("繰り返しは occurrenceDate の回だけ"), which is narrow and does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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