reminders_create_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds two things beyond that: the timezone dependency for due dates and the required 'reminders' permission scope. It does not mention the human-approval path implied by the _approvalId parameter, which is notable for a write tool, keeping this at a 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the constraint is stated immediately after the verb. The bracketed version/permission tag is somewhat metadata-like, but it carries scope information useful to the caller.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the idempotency/approval parameter semantics live in the schema. However, for a write tool that carries an _approvalId parameter, the description never tells the agent an approval may be required or how the approval flow interacts with the idempotency key, leaving a real 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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents title, notes, listId, timezone, and idempotency semantics; baseline is 3. The description does add one genuinely cross-field constraint not encoded in the schema (a due date requires a timezone), but only for a single parameter family, so it does not rise above baseline.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a reminder'), so an agent can distinguish it from reminders_list_tasks and reminders_update_task by intent. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g. use reminders_update_task to modify an existing reminder), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only implied by the verb 'Create' plus the prerequisite 'due dates require timezone', which tells the agent something must be supplied for dated reminders. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against reminders_update_task or reminders_complete_task, so this is the minimum-viable tier.

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