gmail_snooze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: only presets valid at the current time are offered, and an unavailable preset fails with not_found listing available options. It also notes that gmail_unsnooze reverts the action. It does not describe the full side effect of snoozing (e.g. removal from inbox until the snooze expires), so it falls short of completely transparent 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 ten-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the undo alternative, and the critical preset-availability failure behavior. The selection parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete; it could mention the return behavior or the conversation's temporary disappearance, but not critically so.

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%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters, including enum values and defaults. The description adds context about preset availability but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: snoozing conversations until a preset or custom date/time. It also names the sibling gmail_unsnooze as the reversion mechanism, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 clearly implies when to snooze and explicitly points to gmail_unsnooze for reverting. It stops short of spelling out when not to use this tool versus other Gmail actions, but the context and alternative are clear.

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