setReminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set a reminder' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing reminders, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns confirmation data, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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's front-loaded with the core purpose 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the tool returns, error handling), usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data. For a tool that creates reminders, more detail is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 clear descriptions for date (ISO format), note (reminder note), and raindropId (bookmark ID). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents all parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Set a reminder for a bookmark' clearly states the action (set) and target resource (reminder for a bookmark). It distinguishes from siblings like deleteReminder (which removes reminders) and createBookmark (which creates bookmarks), but doesn't specify how it differs from similar reminder-related tools since none exist in the sibling list beyond deleteReminder.

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., needing an existing bookmark), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like updateBookmark that might have reminder-related functionality. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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