snooze_email_thread

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

The description mentions the mutation effect and that the thread will automatically reopen, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility (though an unsnooze exists), or rate limits.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main action. The [mutation] tag is embedded compactly. No redundant information.

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 simple mutation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and side effect. Minor gaps like missing mention of thread existence or assignment requirements are acceptable but prevent a 5.

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 describes both parameters well. The description adds minimal additional meaning, only paraphrasing the purpose of the 'until' parameter. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool postpones an email thread until a specific date/time and that it will auto-reopen. The verb 'Pospone' and resource 'hilo de email' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unsnooze_email_thread' which does the opposite.

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 usage (when you want to defer an email thread) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like assign_email_thread or merge_email_threads. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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