dex_create_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 mentions optional features (contact linking, recurrence) but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with mutation implications, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and highlights key optional features without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), response format, and detailed usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning contact linking and recurrence examples, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how dueDate and dueTime relate) or provide additional context for parameters like isComplete.

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 the action ('Create a new reminder') and mentions optional features ('linked to contacts', 'recurrence'), which distinguishes it from other creation tools like dex_create_contact or dex_create_note. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dex_update_reminder, which might handle similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like dex_update_reminder or dex_delete_reminder, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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