Update an existing local Apple Reminder by ID, changing its title, notes, due date, or priority.
Modify an existing local Apple Reminder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Reminder id returned by apple_reminders_list. | |
| dueAt | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / dueAt / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "format": "date-time",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain partial-update semantics (whether omitting a field leaves it unchanged), whether dueAt=null clears the due date, or whether changes are reversible. For a destructive mutation, this gap matters.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so it neither wastes space nor earns praise for economy.
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?
This is a destructive 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 20% schema coverage. The description should at minimum cover partial-update behavior and the meaning of the mutable fields; instead it covers none of them, leaving the agent to guess at semantics that the schema does not supply.
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?
Only 1 of 5 parameters has a schema description (20% coverage); title, notes, priority, and dueAt carry types but no meaning, and priority's 0-9 range is unexplained. The description adds no parameter information at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The only hint is the schema's id description pointing at apple_reminders_list, which is not in the tool description.
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 the verb (Modify) and resource (existing local Apple Reminder), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not say which fields can be modified or how it differs from siblings that also mutate a reminder, such as apple_reminders_set_completed, apple_reminders_set_flagged, and apple_reminders_set_alarm. An agent cannot tell from this line whether those specialized tools are alternatives or complements.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the reminder id must come from apple_reminders_list), and no mention of the specialized setter siblings that cover completed/flagged/alarm changes. The agent must infer routing entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.