important_date_set

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it states that the date is stored as an ordinary task with a next-occurrence due_at plus an annual reminder job, and that dates surface in the morning brief under 'Birthdays & dates.' It also explains timezone behavior relative to daylight saving. This goes well beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive hints, though it does not disclose duplicate handling or update semantics.

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose, storage/surfacing behavior, and the two parameter clarifications that matter most. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and keeps supporting details compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given seven parameters, minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: recurrence model, where dates appear, timezone semantics, and year handling. It does not explicitly state what the response will be or how chat_id is used, but the overall behavior is clear enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the two least obvious parameters: timezone is an IANA name and year is optional and only used for 'turns N.' However, label, month, day, chat_id, and kind are left to their names or schema defaults; in particular, kind values beyond 'birthday' are not specified even though 'other annual date' is mentioned.

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 and resource: 'Remember a birthday or other annual date and remind on that day each year.' It clearly differentiates from calendar_event_propose by stating 'not a separate calendar' and from important_dates_get by the set-vs-get relationship. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately useful for tool selection.

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 a clear condition for use: recurring annual dates that should remind yearly. It implicitly excludes calendar events and one-off reminders by describing the storage as an ordinary task plus annual reminder job, and by mentioning the morning brief/weekly window. It does not explicitly name alternatives like reminder_set or calendar_event_propose, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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