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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond that: it specifies that it deletes the cron row, removes the timestamp from the note, and clears the task notice, while explicitly stating the note text remains. This precisely defines the destructive scope, which is the key behavioral information an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first clause and then details side effects. It is efficient, though the first sentence is long and could be broken for readability; still, every clause earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the key side effects and what remains. It does not cover error handling or reversibility, but annotations already flag destructiveness, so it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents reminder_id and workspace_id. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Da de baja') and resource ('un recordatorio') and details exactly what it does: deletes the cron row, removes the timestamp from the note, and clears the task notice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_reminder or get_reminders, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or named alternative tools mentioned. The description only explains what the tool does, not when or why to invoke it.

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