create_planner_note

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds real context: it affects only the private planner, is invisible to teachers and classmates, creates no attempt count or public post, and is fully reversible via delete_planner_note. That is meaningful disclosure of side effects and blast radius beyond the structured hints, though permissions or verification behavior are not covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the safety scoping. No filler, though the quoted "safe write" framing is slightly informal for a tool definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description fully covers visibility and reversibility for a simple write. The gap is parameter documentation, which leaves the agent to infer the role of course_id and todo_date from the schema alone.

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% across four parameters, and the description never mentions title, details, course_id, or todo_date. The required title and the date-scoping field todo_date are especially opaque, and the description does not hint at what course_id associates the note with.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: "Create a personal reminder in the user's planner." That clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as list_planner_notes or planner_items, though it never explicitly names the create-vs-list boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by "personal reminder" and the point about it not being visible to teachers or classmates, which tells the agent this is for private self-notes. The only explicit alternative routing is to delete_planner_note for reversal; no guidance is given on when to prefer this over planner_items or other note-creating paths.

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