pylon_snooze_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('temporarily hide an issue') and its reversible nature ('until a future date/time'), which is useful. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether the issue remains accessible while snoozed, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some value but leaves gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context with examples. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool without annotations, it should do more to be fully comprehensive, but it meets minimum viability.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (issue_id and until). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format nuances or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('hide') and resource ('issue'), and specifies the temporal aspect ('until a future date/time'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pylon_update_issue by focusing on temporary hiding rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('issues that cannot be worked on now but need follow-up later') with concrete examples (e.g., waiting for customer response). It implies usage scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like pylon_update_issue for permanent changes, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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