Reminders Update Reminder

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not describe update semantics, whether missing fields are preserved or cleared, whether values like null reset fields, or what side effects occur. With annotations present but limited, and a generic description, the agent receives no useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient structure. A single boilerplate sentence saying the tool is 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' carries no informative content and fails to earn 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain which fields are updatable, whether the update is partial or full replacement, how reminder_id is used, or what the return value represents. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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 must compensate by explaining what the 10 parameters mean or how they relate to updating a reminder. It does neither. The agent is left with raw parameter titles like 'Due Date' and 'Priority' and no guidance on formats, units, or valid values.

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 is a pure restatement of the tool name and domain: 'reminders_update_reminder exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP.' It provides no verb-plus-resource explanation of what the tool actually does. An agent must infer from the name alone that it updates a reminder, which is tautological.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it compares with sibling tools such as reminders_create_reminder, reminders_complete_reminder, or reminders_delete_reminder. The description offers no decision-relevant context.

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