update_reminder

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral details: ETag optimistic concurrency, retries on conflict, and the patch semantics of leaving omitted/null fields unchanged.

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 three concise sentences. First states purpose, second clarifies clearing and completion, third mentions concurrency. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: partial update, clearing, completion toggle, and concurrency. It omits explanation of the 'list' parameter but overall provides sufficient context for a patch tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining clearing fields with empty strings for notes, due, url, and setting completed to true/false. However, it does not cover all 8 parameters (e.g., title, priority, list).

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 tool patches mutable fields of a reminder, preserving others. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_reminder and delete_reminder, and clarifies that it can also set completed, overlapping with complete_reminder but explaining the scope.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_reminder. It implies usage for partial updates but lacks direct guidance on selection based on operation scope.

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