Edit Reminder

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the reference method and lists modifiable fields, but does not state whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what happens on invalid references, or whether the operation is a partial update. 'Modify' implies a write operation, so basic behavior is clear, but deeper semantics are missing.

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 core action, and contains no filler. It efficiently covers the purpose, reference method, and modifiable fields without unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately captures the tool's scope and usage. It does not explicitly mention every parameter (e.g., 'clearDue', 'incomplete'), but the schema covers them. The description provides enough behavioral context for moderate complexity, though it could be more explicit about the update semantics.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small hint for the 'id' parameter ('from show output') not present in the schema, but otherwise repeats what the schema already covers. The added value is minimal.

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 'Modify an existing reminder', which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-reminder' and 'delete-reminder' by focusing on modification. The reference method ('index number or ID/UUID prefix') adds specificity beyond the general purpose.

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 on what can be changed ('title, list, due date, notes, priority, or completion status') and how to reference the reminder. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'complete-reminders', but the scope is implicitly clear, so no exclusion guidance is given.

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