reminder_set

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

The description discloses a notable side effect beyond annotations: it sends a confirmation email with an .ics attachment. It also states the output (updated tracked job with reminderAt field). While it doesn't elaborate on the destructiveHint behavior (e.g., whether an existing reminder is overwritten), the additional email side effect and output description add meaningful transparency beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured: it opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then uses bullet points for input parameters, and closes with an output note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown here), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input requirements, side effects (email), and return value. It could have addressed the destructive behavior (e.g., what happens if a reminder already exists), which is hinted by the annotation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value by clarifying that `tracked_job_id` must be `trackedJobs[].id` from tracker_list output, and explicitly distinguishes it from `trackable.id` and `job.id`. It also reiterates the future-date requirement for `remind_at`, reinforcing schema guidance.

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's action: "Sets a reminder for a tracked job." This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also adds a distinguishing side effect: "Sends a confirmation email with .ics calendar attachment." This differentiates it from other reminder tools like reminder_delete and reminder_list, and from generic job update tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is for tracked jobs, requires a future date, and specifies that `tracked_job_id` comes from `tracker_list` output. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its applicability relative to siblings.

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