set_reminder

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

Annotations only signal a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds behavioral nuance by explaining that follow_up is dated, occasion recurs on a date, and communication_note is undated guidance surfaced with the person's context. This exceeds what the annotation booleans convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then uses a clean enum breakdown. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 core create semantics and kind behavior are well covered, and the output schema handles return-value expectations. However, the optional recurrence/due_at relationship is under-specified, especially how recurrence applies to occasion reminders, and there is no guidance on sourcing person_id beyond 'existing person.'

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%, so the description carries the burden for all 5 parameters. It richly explains the kind enum, and kind implications hint at due_at, but person_id, text, due_at, and especially recurrence are left to name-based inference. This is only partial compensation for the absent schema descriptions.

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 specific verb and object: 'Create a reminder for an existing person.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_reminders and complete_reminder by asserting creation semantics, and it scopes the operation to existing people.

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 gives clear context for use: it creates reminders for existing people and defines when each reminder kind (follow_up, occasion, communication_note) is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_reminders or complete_reminder, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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