apple_reminders_update

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

Annotations already indicate write/destructive/idempotent behavior, but the description adds no extra context—not even that it performs a partial update, returns the updated reminder, or that it requires an existing id. 'Modify' adds little beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point, which is concise and easy to parse. It doesn't include unnecessary details, though a bit more context might add value.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is far too minimal to fully inform an agent. It doesn't explain the full effect of the update, return values, error cases, or partial-update semantics, leaving significant gaps for a non-trivial mutation tool.

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 only 20% (only the 'id' field has a description), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the other parameters (title, notes, dueAt, priority). It doesn't mention that dueAt can be null to clear a date, or that priority must be 0-9, leaving the agent to rely on bare schema types.

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 ('Modify') and the resource ('existing local Apple Reminder'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, and complete, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The word 'local' adds useful scope.

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 implies that this tool is used to change an existing reminder, but it does not specify when to prefer it over complete or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining an id from list. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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