create_work_package_reminder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the unique-active-reminder constraint with its failure mode, the ISO 8601 format with an example, and the OpenProject 16.1+ requirement.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: format, constraint, and version prerequisite in that order. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key failure mode, format, and version requirement. The confirm/preview mechanism is documented in the schema, but the unexplained 'note' parameter leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 50%; work_package_id and confirm already have schema descriptions, and the description usefully documents remind_at's ISO 8601 format. The 'note' parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a reminder on a work package'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_reminder or list_reminders, but the name's verb conveys the distinction.

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 gives the 'one active reminder per work package' constraint and a version prerequisite (16.1+), which helps avoid errors. However, it never says when to use this versus update_reminder or delete_reminder, leaving alternative routing implicit.

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