Cancel reminder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that it cancels a scheduled reminder and requires the id or exact text, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether cancellation is reversible, whether it affects the audit trail, or what happens if the reminder is already cancelled. The dry_run parameter is documented in the schema, not the description. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and the key input requirement. It is concise and free of filler. It could add a brief note about dry_run or idempotency, but the current length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations indicating destructive behavior. The description covers the essential action and input. However, for a destructive tool, it would be more complete to mention that dry_run can preview the cancellation and that idempotency_key prevents duplicate actions, since these are safety-relevant. The description is adequate but leaves those behavioral details to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it restates that 'reminder' is the id or exact text, which is already in the schema. It does not explain how member, dry_run, or idempotency_key interact with the cancellation behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Cancels a scheduled reminder.' It also specifies the required input (reminder id or exact text), which distinguishes it from reminder-related siblings like add_reminder and list_reminders. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when a scheduled reminder needs to be cancelled, and it tells the agent the required identifier format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using dry_run to preview, or confirm_action for confirmation flows). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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