Set a reminder (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verification step ('verify it appears in the reminder store'), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention error handling, success/failure signals, or side effects like whether setting a new reminder overwrites an existing one. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral context would be expected, but the verification detail saves it from being lower.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then specifies the delay, and finally mentions the verification step. Everything present is informative and contributes directly to tool usage.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function but leaves gaps. It does not state what the tool returns (if anything), nor clarify interaction with related reminder tools (e.g., does it clear previous reminders?). Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more detail on return behavior or side effects would make it more complete, but it's adequate for basic invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'minutes' parameter via 'after N minutes' and does not mention the 'message' parameter at all. Given the schema already contains the field names, the description adds minimal value: it clarifies that minutes refer to a delay, but message remains undocumented.

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 verb ('Set'), the resource ('notification reminder'), the delay parameter ('after N minutes'), and a distinguishing behavior ('verify it appears in the reminder store'). This differentiates it from sibling tools reminder_show and reminder_clear, which display and clear reminders respectively.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to set a reminder), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reminder_show or reminder_clear, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used. It's adequately clear for straightforward use but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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