uncomplete_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Mark'), implying it changes data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or what happens if the reminder is already incomplete. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain what the tool returns. For a tool that changes state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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' fully documented in the schema as 'The reminder ID to mark as incomplete (required)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific state change ('as incomplete'). It distinguishes from 'complete_reminder' by specifying the opposite state, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools like 'update_reminder' or 'delete_reminder' beyond the implied state change.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the reminder must exist and be currently marked as complete), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'update_reminder' which might also handle state changes. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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