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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that four linked pieces (note line, segment, cron alert, task) are moved atomically and that skipping this causes the note to revert the change, plus that a fired reminder becomes pending again. The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so this adds genuine behavioral context rather than repeating it.

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 core action, then the atomicity caveat, then the two input modes and the alternative – a sensible order. It is slightly dense with parenthetical clauses, but each sentence carries actionable 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?

Covers the mutation's scope, both parameter modes, timezone handling, idempotence on already-fired reminders, and the sibling alternative, which is sufficient for a 5-param mutation tool with only annotations and no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of error cases if the reminder_id is invalid.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: snooze_minutes counts from now, date/time are relative to the user's timezone, unspecified fields stay as they were, and the two modes are mutually exclusive deployment patterns with natural-language examples.

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 ('Mueve un recordatorio a otra hora') and immediately frames it as the snooze/reschedule operation, distinguishing it from the app's other reminder action. It also names cancel_reminder as the sibling for a different intent, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for both input modes ('snooze_minutes' desde ahora vs 'date'/'time'), states that omitted fields keep their current value, notes it works on a reminder that already fired, and names the alternative (cancel_reminder) for cancelling. Nothing is left to inference.

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