create_reminder

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: 'Shows a native confirmation dialog before adding.' This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) which only indicate write and non-destructive nature, but do not mention the confirmation dialog.

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 concise with three short sentences, front-loading the primary action. The third sentence, while useful, slightly extends length but does not harm clarity. It is well-structured with no waste.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main behavior and recommended workflow but omits details on return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., requiring the email to exist). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 9 parameters. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond mentioning 'from an email', which is already implied by parameter names like email_id and account. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 tool creates a reminder in macOS Reminders.app specifically from an email, using the verb 'create' and specifying the resource 'reminder' and origin 'from an email'. This distinguishes it from general reminder creation tools and sibling tools like add_to_calendar.

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 explicitly states when to use ('action items, deadlines, and follow-up tasks extracted from emails') and recommends a predecessor tool ('Use analyze_email_for_scheduling first'), providing clear guidance on appropriate context and workflow.

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