nexo_cognitive_snooze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states two key behaviors: hiding from searches and auto-restoring. It does not mention whether the memory is still accessible by ID or if snoozes can be canceled, but for a tool of this simplicity, the disclosure is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It uses a dash to separate the core action from the explanation. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential functionality. It explains the snooze behavior and restoration. A minor gap is not mentioning if the memory can still be accessed directly during snooze, but overall it is mostly complete for typical use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it only describes the overall action. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the 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 uses a specific verb 'snooze' and clearly identifies the resource 'a memory'. It explains the unique behavior of hiding from searches until a date and auto-restoring, distinguishing it from siblings like archive or pin that do not have automatic restoration.

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 when to use the tool (to temporarily hide a memory) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to alternatives like nexo_cognitive_archive or nexo_cognitive_restore. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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