snooze-calendar-event-reminder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds that the reminder re-fires at the new time, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't elaborate on side effects or confirmation requirements beyond what schema and annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the tip block is concise. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with annotations and a detailed input schema, the description covers the essential action and body format. It doesn't explain the confirm gate, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse, but these are generic and already in the schema. The absence of an output schema means the description isn't required to describe return values. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it.

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 80%, and the core body structure (NewReminderTime with dateTime and timeZone) is already documented. The description adds a note about timeZone being IANA or Windows, which slightly clarifies the schema's example, but it does not add substantial new meaning. Thus, the baseline of 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 action (postpone) and the resource (a reminder for an event), and the phrase 'triggered event reminder' distinguishes it from related actions like dismissal. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 conveys when to use it: for a triggered reminder that should re-fire later. It implies the alternative (dismissing) is different but does not explicitly name it or give exclusion criteria. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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