complete_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the state transition and omits important details such as whether completion is irreversible, idempotent, requires permissions, or affects the reminder listing. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 five-word sentence with no filler or irrelevant detail. It front-loads the action and resource while remaining immediately scannable. 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the minimum viable action. The schema covers all parameters, so the invocation details are present. However, it lacks side-effect information and any relationship to sibling reminders operations, which would help an agent use it safely.

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%: the only parameter, 'reminder,' is already described as 'Reminder ID to complete.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the imperative 'Mark' with a specific resource 'a reminder' and target state 'complete,' which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_reminder, list_reminders, and delete_reminder by the unique action of completing rather than creating, listing, or deleting.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related reminder tools. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the reminder needing to exist, or context such as completing a reminder after it has fired. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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