pylon_snooze_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'temporarily hide' and implies a future reactivation, but it does not specify exactly what happens when the snooze ends (e.g., automatic reactivation) or any side effects.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly front-loading the key action and purpose.

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 tool with two required parameters (both documented) and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and its temporal nature. It could be enhanced by specifying that the issue will reappear automatically.

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 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (issue_id and until with format). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose, so it meets the baseline.

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 action ('temporarily hide an issue') and its purpose ('for deferred follow-up'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like pylon_delete_issue (permanent) and pylon_update_issue (general update).

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 implies when to use this tool (when a deferred follow-up is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Given the sibling context, it is clear enough.

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