cancel_reminder

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the context that it targets a pending reminder and requires an ID, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or idempotency. This is sufficient for a simple cancel operation but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the purpose and the key procedural detail (where to get the ID). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, and annotations provided), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and how to obtain the required ID. It doesn't mention return values or edge cases (e.g., reminder not found), but these are less critical for a straightforward cancel operation.

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?

The schema already provides a complete description of the 'id' parameter (8-character hex string). The description adds significant value by explicitly telling the user to get the ID from set_reminder or list_reminders, which clarifies the parameter's origin and format beyond the schema alone.

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 (Cancel), the resource (a pending reminder), and the mode of identification (by its ID). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_reminder and list_reminders by indicating the ID can be obtained from those tools.

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 clear context by specifying that the tool is for canceling a pending reminder and instructs how to acquire the necessary ID. While it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is specific and actionable, making the usage context clear.

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