Update Reminder

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., that it performs partial updates or is safe to retry). Without annotation contradiction, the description fails to leverage the low bar.

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 short sentence, which is concise but slightly under-informative for a tool with 6 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but omits helpful details like partial updates.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, siblings, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It could clarify partial update behavior, idempotency, or what happens to unspecified fields. The annotations partially compensate for behavioral details, but the gap remains.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself provides clear parameter definitions. No additional context is necessary.

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 'Update reminder properties' clearly communicates the verb (update) and resource (reminder properties). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_reminder, delete_reminder, and complete_reminder, though it could be more explicit about modifying existing reminders.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_reminder or delete_reminder. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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