update_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists updated fields and mentions 'Returns: Structured JSON with the updated reminder or an error message.' However, it does not clarify what happens to unprovided parameters (e.g., do defaults overwrite existing values?), nor does it explain matching behavior when multiple reminders match. Key behavioral details are missing.

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 well-structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, each parameter on its own line with concise explanation. No redundant or extraneous information, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The description covers all parameters and return type, but lacks details on matching semantics (how 'uniquely matching' works with identifier and list_name) and the effect of omitting fields. Given the tool's complexity and presence of output schema, more context on behavior is needed for full completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 8 parameters, including types and optionality (e.g., 'Optional Reminders list name', 'Optional replacement reminder name', 'Priority from 0 to 9'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema defaults.

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 'Update an exact or uniquely matching reminder.' The verb 'update' and resource 'reminder' are explicit, and 'exact or uniquely matching' adds specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_reminder' (create?), 'complete_reminder', and 'reschedule_reminder' by offering modification of multiple fields.

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 implies usage for updating reminders by identifier, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare with alternatives like 'reschedule_reminder' for date-only changes or 'complete_reminder' for completion state, leaving the agent to infer.

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