set_band_reminder

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

With annotations already indicating destructive/write behavior, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: created updates verify stored fields, unrelated entries are preserved, recurrence follows UTC and does not track DST, and timeout_seconds is range-limited to 5..90. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and caveats. The text is slightly choppy in places, but every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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?

The description covers key operational caveats, timeout bounds, and create/update semantics, which is good for a tool with six parameters. However, it does not clearly define the repeat or timezone parameters, leaving a meaningful gap in a callable description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'at', 'title', 'reminder_id', and 'timeout_seconds', but repeat and timezone are only indirectly addressed through the recurrence/UTC caveat. The meaning of the timezone parameter in particular remains underspecified.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create or update one wrist reminder, then verify its actual stored fields,' naming both the verb and the resource. It is distinct from the sibling set_band_alarm by referring to a wrist reminder, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: omit reminder_id to create, use a listed ID to update, supply all desired fields, and inspect get_band_schedule on an unknown result before retrying. It does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over set_band_alarm, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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