update_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return value: 'True if the reminder was found and updated, False otherwise.' It also discloses that leaving optional fields empty means 'keep unchanged,' which is key for an update operation.

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 efficiently structured with an Args section and a Returns section. It covers all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the content is well organized for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple CRUD tool with five parameters and one required, the description is comprehensive. It documents all parameters, explains the search-narrowing behavior, and specifies the boolean return value. The output schema likely defines the return type, but the description adds explicit semantics that are valuable.

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's parameter descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanations for all five parameters, including a concrete example for due_date ('February 28, 2026 at 9:00 AM') and the exact semantics of name and list_name.

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 tool's function: 'Update properties of an existing reminder.' This specifies a verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like create_reminder, complete_reminder, and delete_reminder.

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 implies usage by explaining that 'name' is required and 'list_name' narrows the search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use create_reminder for new reminders' or similar, leaving the guidance to inference.

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