set_wake_pending

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: explains what happens when pending is True vs False, and states 'Mutates the wake monitor state.' Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-read-only, and the description aligns without contradiction, adding useful context.

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 concise (5 short sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (single boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the parameter, use case, and side effects. Minor gaps: no mention of permissions, error conditions, or return values, but these are not critical for a simple state setter.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the sole parameter 'pending' by detailing the behavior for True and False values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type and required status.

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: manually set the wake pending state to block or allow new wakes. It uses specific verbs ('set', 'block', 'allow') and identifies the resource ('wake pending state'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_wake_config or set_wake_enabled, but the distinct boolean parameter makes the purpose clear.

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 a use case: 'Use this to prevent duplicate wakes while the agent is already working.' This gives context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., set_wake_enabled) that might be more appropriate.

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