set_reminders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that reminders are replaced, empty list clears them, and no other task fields are affected. It also usefully reveals the v1 vs v2 request-cost difference, which is beyond what the schema conveys.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the clear-list behavior and the version-specific request implications. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, side effects, and version-specific costs. It does not mention return values, permissions, or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that these omissions are minor.

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 input schema only gives names and types, so the description adds essential meaning: reminders must be ISO 8601 datetime strings, the list replaces existing reminders, and an empty array clears them. The task_id parameter is not elaborated, but its purpose is evident from the name and context.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('a task's reminders'), and precisely defines behavior including that an empty list clears reminders. This clearly distinguishes it from generic update_task and other sibling tools.

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 makes the use case clear: modify or clear a task's reminders without changing any other task fields. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous.

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