update_reminder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing partial-update semantics (omitted fields are preserved) and a version prerequisite (OpenProject 16.1+), which the structured fields do not carry. It does not restate the preview/confirm gate, but the schema parameter already documents that.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the version requirement placed last as a prerequisite. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the tool is a simple mutation whose parameters are fully documented and whose confirm-preview flow is spelled out in the schema. A brief note on what the update returns or on permission requirements would close the remaining 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the per-parameter docs are already complete, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding a cross-parameter rule the schema cannot express: at least one of remind_at/note must be supplied, otherwise the call is meaningless.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a reminder') plus the exact mutable fields ('time or note'), which cleanly separates it from create_work_package_reminder and delete_reminder. An agent knows immediately which operation this is.

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 conveys a constraint ('at least one is required, an omitted one stays unchanged') that implies an update-with-partial-fields use case, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as delete_reminder or create_work_package_reminder. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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