add-reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the three reminder types and the taskId constraint, which is useful beyond annotations. It doesn't describe deeper behavior like error handling or overwriting semantics, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 long, front-loads the primary action, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the operation and the three types, plus the taskId requirement. No filler or unnecessary detail is present.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity. It provides a high-level summary that, combined with a very rich schema (including detailed property descriptions and an output schema), gives the agent enough information to use the tool correctly. The mention of three types and the taskId requirement covers the critical aspects at a conceptual level.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond repeating that each reminder must specify a taskId, which is already in the schema's required fields. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; no further compensation is needed.

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 tool's function: "Add reminders to tasks" with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find-reminders and update-reminders by focusing on creation, and it enumerates the three supported reminder types (relative, absolute, location). This satisfies the requirement for a specific verb+resource that is differentiated from alternatives.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when adding reminders to tasks, with explicit mention of three types and the requirement for a taskId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent. A modest deduction is applied because no direct comparison to update-reminders or find-reminders is made.

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