dex_update_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 states the tool updates a reminder, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the reminderId is invalid), permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 action ('Update a reminder by ID') and follows with a concise list of modifiable attributes. There is no wasted text, making it highly readable and straightforward.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with nested objects and 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover error cases, response format, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool reliably in varied contexts.

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?

The description lists the modifiable fields (text, due date/time, linked contacts, recurrence, completion status, and notification flags), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's property names. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by clarifying what the 'reminder' object can contain, though it doesn't detail the exact structure or constraints like ISO 8601 formats mentioned in the schema.

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 ('Update a reminder by ID') and specifies what can be modified ('Modify text, due date/time, linked contacts, recurrence, completion status, and notification flags'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dex_update_contact' or 'dex_update_note' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update a reminder versus creating a new one with 'dex_create_reminder' or deleting one with 'dex_delete_reminder'. It also lacks information on prerequisites, like needing an existing reminder ID, leaving usage context implied at best.

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