update_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only one behavioral trait: due values are normalized to Beijing time. It does not mention whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether the update is partial versus full, what the response contains, or any error/authentication requirements. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise and free of filler, earning its place. However, it may be too sparse given the tool's complexity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Despite having an output schema that could explain return values, the description is incomplete for an 8-parameter update tool. It lacks guidance on which parameters are optional, whether the update is partial (though 'supplied fields' implies this), how clear_due interacts with due, and any usage caveats. The timezone note is a useful addition but does not make the description sufficiently 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It fails to do so; the only parameter-related note is about 'due' normalization, which is a behavior rather than a full explanation of the parameter's format or constraints. Most parameters (e.g., priority, clear_due, flagged) are left entirely to their schema types and titles.

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 verb 'Update' plus the resource 'supplied fields' clearly indicates a partial update of an existing reminder. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_reminder, delete_reminder, and set_reminder_completed, though it does not explicitly state which fields are supported (that is left to 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any exclusions (e.g., 'use create_reminder for new reminders'). The context of sibling names implies its role but does not provide direct guidance.

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