reminders_update_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the permission scope ("permissions: reminders") and the native-ID targeting requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved, whether an approval is required, or how _approvalId interacts with the write.

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 fragments with the action front-loaded and the version/permission metadata clearly bracketed as secondary. No wasted words.

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 explained, and annotations plus the permission tag cover the safety and auth profile. For a reminder update tool the description supplies enough to call it correctly.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every field including id, due, listId, and _idempotencyKey. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Update reminder fields by native ID" gives a specific verb (update), resource (reminder fields), and identifying key (native ID), which separates it from siblings like reminders_create_task, reminders_complete_task, and reminders_delete_task. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent must infer that this is for editing existing reminders rather than completing (reminders_complete_task) or recreating them, and there is no guidance on partial-update semantics versus full replacement.

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