update_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one important behavioral trait: 'Only specified fields will be changed' (partial update behavior). However, it doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when invalid data is provided. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise - two clear sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about partial updates. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. While concise, it doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from sibling update tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it implies the tool performs partial updates ('Only specified fields will be changed'), which helps interpret how parameters interact. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter relationships or constraints beyond what's already in the detailed schema descriptions.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing reminder's properties'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'create_reminder' by specifying 'existing reminder', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'batch_update_reminders' or 'rename_reminder_list'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_update_reminders' for multiple updates or 'complete_reminder' for marking completion. It mentions 'Only specified fields will be changed' which is a behavioral note rather than usage guidance. No prerequisites or context for when this tool is appropriate are provided.

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