snooze_thread_triage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the soft nature ('Soft only — thread stays open'), clarifies it does not auto-dismiss, and mentions the default 7 days. However, it does not state reversibility, idempotency, or any side effects beyond the snooze, but the core behavior is transparent enough 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 compact (three sentences) with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical 'soft only' caveat and then the alternative. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: it identifies the target (thread), the delay (days), and the behavioral constraint (soft, non-dismissing). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or side effects beyond the immediate action, but these are minor for a snooze operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the default for days ('default 7') and implies thread identity via 'stale-thread', but it does not explicitly explain that thread_id is required or that days is optional with a 1-30 range. The description adds some context for days but leaves thread_id semantics implicit, so it partially compensates for the missing schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('snooze') and names the resource ('stale-thread triage prompts'), clearly indicating a postponement action rather than a resolution. It explicitly contrasts with confirm_thread_relevant, naming the sibling and the condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish this tool from alternatives without opening schemas.

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?

It states when to use this tool ('when the outcome is still wanted now' is the condition for the alternative) and explicitly excludes auto-dismissal ('Never auto-dismisses'). It also provides an alternative tool name (confirm_thread_relevant) for immediate action, giving clear context for selection among siblings.

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