batch_update_reminders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions efficiency but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a mutation (implied by 'update'), what permissions are required, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid entries, or rate limits. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage benefit. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error handling), output format, or prerequisites. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete.

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 100%, with the 'reminders' parameter fully documented in the schema (array of reminder updates, max 100 items). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying batch processing. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('update') and resource ('multiple reminders'), and specifies it's a batch operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_reminder' by emphasizing 'multiple reminders at once' versus single updates. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or detail functional differences beyond efficiency.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'More efficient than updating one at a time.' This implicitly suggests using it over the sibling 'update_reminder' for multiple updates. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for single updates).

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