snooze-calendar-event-reminder

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling modification. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the body structure (NewReminderTime with dateTime and timeZone) and that the reminder will re-fire at the new time. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the original reminder is deleted) or permissions needed, leaving some gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences plus a tip, front-loading the core purpose and followed by critical usage details. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no extraneous information. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the key parameter body in detail. It does not explain the optional includeHeaders/excludeResponse but their meaning is standard. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add a note about required eventId.

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 description elaborates on the 'body' parameter beyond the schema, specifying the structure 'NewReminderTime' with 'dateTime (ISO 8601)' and 'timeZone (IANA or Windows)'. For the other parameters (eventId, includeHeaders, excludeResponse), it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. With 75% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the body parameter.

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: 'Postpone a reminder for an event in a user calendar until a new time.' It uses specific verb 'postpone' and resource 'reminder for an event', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'dismiss-calendar-event-reminder' which dismisses rather than postpones.

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 includes a tip stating that it 'postpones a triggered event reminder', providing context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like the dismiss sibling or mention prerequisites (e.g., reminder must be triggered). The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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