update-reminders

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

Annotations already indicate that the operation is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that only included fields are updated ('Only include fields that need to change'), which implies a partial-update semantics rather than full replacement, and it stresses the necessity of type and ID, which informs error handling.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by two essential usage requirements. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the complexity of three reminder types in the schema, the description captures the key facts an agent needs: it updates existing reminders, requires type and ID, and supports partial updates. The schema itself provides all field-level details, and an output schema exists (though not shown) to clarify return values, so there are no significant gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each field and the array property already explaining its meaning and constraints. The tool description essentially restates the schema's 'reminders' description ('Each must include the reminder type and ID. Only include fields that need to change.'), adding no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with 'Update existing reminders,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like add-reminders and find-reminders. It further clarifies the required type and ID, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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 clear context on when to use the tool (to modify existing reminders) and includes essential usage requirements (each reminder must include type and ID; only include fields that need to change). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement strongly implies the boundary with related tools.

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