create_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new reminder' and lists parameters, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a short argument list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content. The front-loaded purpose helps the agent quickly grasp the tool's function.

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, an output schema is present (per context signals), and the description covers the purpose and all parameters adequately. It does not describe behavioral caveats, but for a straightforward 'create' operation with an output schema, the essential context is provided. However, some behavioral details (e.g., what happens if list_name doesn't exist) would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are crucial. It provides meaning for all four parameters: title, list_name, due_date (including ISO format), and notes, along with defaults. This adds significant value beyond the schema's property types and required flag.

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 opens with 'Create a new reminder.' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling reminder tools like list_reminders, complete_reminder, and get_overdue_reminders by focusing on the creation action.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when a new reminder needs to be created) through its direct statement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the tool's distinct purpose among siblings.

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