apple_reminders_set_completed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that the operation is bidirectional and can reopen a completed reminder — but says nothing about required Reminders permissions, behavior on an unknown id, or why a mere state toggle carries destructiveHint=true.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the sibling differentiation noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and two fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves real gaps: where the 'id' comes from, how this differs from 'apple_reminders_complete', and confirmation of what state changes when completed=false. Annotations cover reversibility, but not the task-level context an agent needs.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implicitly maps 'completed' to a true/false complete-vs-reopen semantic and hints that 'id' refers to a reminder; the id's format, source, and how to obtain it (list/search/get) are never stated.

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 concrete verb+resource ('set a reminder completion state') and adds the bidirectional nuance that it can reopen a completed reminder. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'apple_reminders_complete', nor from 'apple_reminders_update', so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With a sibling named 'apple_reminders_complete' presumably doing the forward direction, the description never says when to use this tool instead of that one, or when to prefer 'apple_reminders_update'.

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