create_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that recurring entries can be created. It says nothing about defaults, how the recurrence fields interact, whether notifications are opt-in, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified optional fields on a 14-parameter mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; it wastes no words. It is efficient but so short that concision comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema and no field documentation, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine from the description alone which parameters interact for recurring entries or what a transfer requires versus an expense.

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 0% across 14 parameters, and the description only implicitly maps to the 'type' enum (expense/income/transfer) and hints at recurrence. It adds no meaning for interval, step, endDate, toAccount, receivedAmount, points, notify, categories, or payee — the fields most likely to be misused.

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 gives a specific verb plus the three resource types it creates (expense, income, transfer) and clarifies that scheduled/recurring items are supported, which usefully disambiguates the tool name 'create_reminder' from what it actually does. It does not explicitly contrast with create_transaction, but the word 'scheduled' implicitly separates it from immediate transaction creation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus create_transaction, update_reminder, or the list_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance is implicit in the adjective 'scheduled', leaving the agent to infer that recurring/future-dated entries belong here rather than in create_transaction.

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