apple_reminders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Control Apple Reminders' and lists actions. It does not disclose potential side effects, confirmation requirements (despite the schema's confirm parameter), or whether operations are destructive or reversible. This is a significant gap for a tool that includes delete/complete actions.

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 concise, with two short sentences that convey the core purpose and list actions without extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the resource name, though the structure is a simple enumeration rather than a more organized breakdown.

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 complexity (8 parameters, multiple distinct actions, no output schema), the description is under-specified. It merely lists actions without explaining their behavior, when to use them, or important details like confirmation or list selection. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide a complete overview.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to add extra parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's domain (Apple Reminders) and lists the supported actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools. While 'Control' is generic, the action list provides specific verbs and resources, making the purpose 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other Apple tools, nor does it explain when to choose specific actions. The action names imply usage, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.

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