bexio Invoice Reminders

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'delete permanently deletes the reminder — cannot be undone' and 'create creates the next reminder level' (non-idempotent). Also clarifies email format constraints. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the purpose and structured by actions. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but still concise given the breadth of actions (9 actions covered).

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?

With 7 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all actions thoroughly. It explains required and optional parameters per action, searchable fields, and side effects (permanent deletion). Minor omission: does not describe return format for list/search/get (though intuitive for invoice reminders).

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema definitions. For 'search', it lists searchable fields (title, reminder_level, etc.). For 'pdf', it explains logopaper and save_path. For 'send', it details the email object structure and required placeholder. This provides actionable guidance.

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 it manages payment reminders of a bexio invoice and enumerates all actions (list, search, get, create, delete, send, etc.). The verb 'Manage' plus resource 'payment reminders' distinguishes it from sibling tools like bexio_invoices or bexio_invoice_payments.

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 specifies that all actions require invoice_id and gives per-action parameter requirements (e.g., reminder_id for get/delete/send, email for send). It also includes constraints like 'message must contain [Network Link]' for send, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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