Edit Reminder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only mild behavioral detail (clear_due as a distinct flag, complete/incomplete), and is silent on edge cases such as what happens if both complete and incomplete are sent, or what the call returns.

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 purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the entire Args block duplicates a schema that is already 100% described, so a substantial share of the text does not earn its place. Sized adequately but not tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say what a successful edit returns or confirms, and it does not. It does cover the required id source and the mutation's field set, making it minimally sufficient for a 9-parameter mutation tool but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates each parameter and adds one small piece of meaning beyond the schema ('Index number or ID prefix from show_reminders output'), but most of the arg list is redundant with the schema text rather than adding new semantics.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Edit an existing Apple Reminder') and enumerates the editable surface (title, due date, notes, priority, list, completion), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_reminder and delete_reminders. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating by itself.

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?

It gives a clear positive trigger ('Use when the user wants to change...'), which is real usage guidance. However, marking complete/incomplete overlaps with the complete_reminders sibling, and the description never says when to prefer that tool over this one, leaving a genuine routing ambiguity unresolved.

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