monica_reminders

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds real behavioral context: delete requires `confirm: true`, Monica emails reminders when due, and birthday reminders are auto-generated. It does not cover permissions or whether update replaces or merges fields, keeping it out of the top tier.

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 purpose and the email behavior are front-loaded, then actions are laid out as terse bullets with no filler. It is information-dense but readable; a slightly tighter grouping of the create/repeat options would make it cleaner.

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 multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action routing, the destructive confirmation, list ordering, and auto-created birthdays. It stops short of describing return shape or update semantics, which an agent might still wonder about.

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 coverage is only 30% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain id, date, days (lookahead window), repeat values including 'every N', and confirm, but leaves title, description, contact, and the `every` interval largely unspecified. Partial compensation, hence a middle score.

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 resource (reminders about contacts) and enumerates the four operations the single tool performs, so an agent can see exactly what it does. It is distinct from siblings like monica_contacts or monica_journal, though it never explicitly names those siblings to route between them.

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?

Each action is given a use condition: list for upcoming reminders (soonest first, scoped by contact or the next `days`), create for a dated/repeating reminder, update/delete by id with `confirm: true` for delete. It also tells the agent not to hand-create birthday reminders because Monica does that automatically. No explicit when-not-guidance or named alternatives beyond that.

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