manage_reminders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully adds that reminders live in the cloud and fire notifications through the Kaption extension. However, it never distinguishes the safety profile of the read actions (list/get) from the destructive ones (delete), nor mentions permissions, reversibility of delete, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a scannable action table and three concrete examples; every line carries information. It is slightly redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 seven-parameter dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the action surface, required inputs, examples, and the notification side effect. It omits what list/get return and how errors surface, but the 100%-covered schema carries the parameter burden well.

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 every parameter including the filter and notification_type enums with defaults. The description restates the same per-action requirements and adds only format examples (ISO 8601 datetime, id shape), which is marginal added value.

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 names a specific resource ('personal reminders') and enumerates all seven operations with their required inputs, so an agent knows exactly what capability surface this tool exposes. No sibling tool touches reminders, so the scope is unambiguous within the toolset.

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 action list effectively tells the agent which operation to pick for each intent (list vs get vs create vs complete), and states per-action required parameters such as title+datetime for create. It stops short of any exclusion guidance or advice on when a reminder action is inappropriate relative to other tools.

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