complete_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation (marking as complete) but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., if completion triggers notifications, updates timestamps, or affects list visibility), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves gaps for safe agent operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Mark a reminder as complete' efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the mutation nature (implied by 'Mark'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'complete' means behaviorally, potential return values, or error handling. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The reminder ID to mark as complete (required)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark') and resource ('a reminder') with a specific outcome ('as complete'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'uncomplete_reminder' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'complete' entails (e.g., status change, timestamp update), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the reminder must exist and be incomplete), contrast with 'update_reminder' for partial changes, or specify scenarios like marking overdue reminders. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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