due_again_add_item

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the category-mismatch fallback behavior and the semantics of reminders ('days before the due date'). It does not disclose what the response looks like or that repeats need an interval (that is only in the schema).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries usable information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 55% schema description coverage, the description covers the headline concept and two tricky parameters but leaves return behavior and several optional parameters unaddressed.

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 coverage is 55%, so the description must carry some burden. It clarifies category (name-based with fallback) and reminders (offset in days before due date), but says nothing about interval, costVaries, expectedCost, or calculateFrom, leaving several parameters documented only by 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('item to Due Again'), then defines what an item is ('something that comes due on a date, once or on a schedule') with concrete examples. This clearly separates it from siblings like due_again_complete and due_again_items.

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?

Provides real workflow guidance for the category parameter — give the name and, if it does not match, the reply lists valid categories to choose from. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., when to create vs. look up existing items with due_again_items).

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