create_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create mutation in a unified ledger and that armed=false produces an unarmed inbox item, but it does not explain armed=true behavior, permissions, side effects, duplicate handling, or other operational context.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core create action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key armed=false exception.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions across five parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain most parameters or the behavior of armed=true, leaving an agent to infer critical invocation details.

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% for five parameters. The description only explains part of the armed parameter's meaning; it leaves notes, due_date, and cultural_metadata undocumented, and title is only implicitly understood from the tool purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a reminder in the unified ledger. The armed=false branch adds scope detail. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling creation tools such as capture_task or capture_cultural_item.

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 only guidance is a conditional behavioral note about armed=false creating an unarmed inbox item. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like capture_task.

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