defer_until_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose key behavior: creating a checkpoint, preparing a prompt, and not creating the automation itself. Still, it omits side effects, prerequisites, persistence, or response behavior, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 short sentences carry the full description with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the caller responsibility is stated separately and clearly.

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?

The tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It explains the high-level purpose but not how to populate required inputs, what the prepared prompt should contain, what the tool returns, or what the five-hour reset workflow expects. This is not enough for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is only 22% (taskId and workspaceRoot have descriptions), yet the tool description names none of the nine parameters. Required fields like objective, completed, and pending are left for the agent to infer from context, which is insufficient for a tool with four required parameters.

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 names a specific action — 'Create a checkpoint and prepare a same-task Codex heartbeat automation prompt' — and gives the context ('for the five-hour reset'). It is clear about the tool's role and distinct enough from sibling checkpoint_create by mentioning the automation prompt, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'for the five-hour reset' and 'The caller must create the automation' provide clear usage context and a caller responsibility. However, it does not explain when to choose this over checkpoint_create, checkpoint_get, or quota_status, leaving alternative selection mostly implied.

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