Complete Reminders

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 explains the input interpretation (indexes or UUID prefixes) but does not mention what happens after completion, idempotency, or error handling. For a simple mutation tool, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential reference information without any wasted words. It earns a high score for efficiency and clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core usage: what the tool does and how to specify inputs. It doesn't elaborate on return values or error cases, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of mention of what constitutes 'completed' status, but this is not critical.

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 documents the 'ids' parameter with a description that mirrors the tool description ('Reminder index numbers or ID/UUID prefixes to mark complete'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 ('Mark one or more reminders as completed') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the 'complete' operation, distinct from add/edit/delete. The reference method (index numbers or ID/UUID prefixes) adds further specificity.

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 gives practical usage guidance by explaining how to reference reminders ('from show output' or ID/UUID prefixes), which implies a prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete-reminders, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for completing tasks.

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