mark_as_unsent_invoice_reminder

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

The description simply restates the action without explaining side effects, such as whether it resets the sent date or triggers any related updates. Annotations declare it is non-readonly, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, but the description adds no further context about the operation's consequences.

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 very brief—a fragment that essentially mirrors the tool name. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified and lacks any context or structure, so it doesn't earn high marks for being appropriately informative.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is minimal. It doesn't specify the return value or the effects of the operation, and it fails to position the tool among its siblings.

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 fully documents both parameters (`invoice_id` and `reminder_id`), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, this meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'Mark' with the object 'reminder' and target state 'unsent', clearly indicating a status change. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `mark_as_sent_invoice_reminder` by specifying the opposite state. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'invoice' in the noun, but the tool name does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this action, such as prerequisites (e.g., reminder must exist and be currently marked as sent) or alternatives (e.g., use `send_invoice_reminder` to actually send). There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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