Complete Reminder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is known. The description adds the useful 'LOCAL mode only' constraint and the dual complete/incomplete behavior, which is partly redundant with the schema. It does not disclose error handling or side effects beyond what annotations already imply.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a valuable scope qualifier. Every word earns 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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and mode restriction. The schema and annotations fill in param details and behavioral hints. It lacks explicit error-handling or preconditions, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully covers both parameters (reminderId description and completed description with default), giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already says. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Marks') and resource ('reminder') with a clear state change ('complete or incomplete'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the completion status specifically, and adds a scope constraint with '(LOCAL mode only)'. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (to mark a reminder complete or incomplete), and the '(LOCAL mode only)' note provides a clear context and restriction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update-reminder or list-reminders, so it lacks a direct comparison.

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