create_reminder

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses persistence, the 1–525600 minute range, the default chime behavior, and that delivery is subject to existing notification preferences. It also explains the idempotency mechanism in practical terms: use a unique request_id and reuse it after an uncertain response to avoid duplicates, which adds meaningful operational context not captured by the idempotentHint alone.

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 three tight sentences with the core action and limits front-loaded, followed by default behavior and then the request_id idempotency instruction. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral and parameter semantics, including idempotency and delivery constraints. It does not state what the call returns or how the created reminder is referenced afterward, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter burden well: it defines the minutes range, states the audio default, and specifies the request_id length/charset plus its idempotency role. The text parameter is not described, but its meaning is self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Schedule a persistent reminder') and adds a concrete time window, making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_reminders or cancel_reminder, but the create action is naturally distinguishable from those.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Schedule a persistent reminder' and by the request_id reuse guidance for uncertain responses, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or when-not-to-use exclusion. An agent can infer this creates a reminder rather than listing or canceling one, but the definition leaves routing to inference.

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