reminders_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the creation action, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The description only covers basic functionality without behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't address what happens after creation, error scenarios, or integration considerations with the Apple Reminders ecosystem. The description covers what the tool does but not the full context of its operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists the supported fields but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It provides a high-level overview but no additional parameter insights.

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 specific action ('Create a new reminder') and target resource ('in Apple Reminders app'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reminders_list or reminders_complete. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the app context and supported fields.

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 implies usage for creating reminders with specific attributes but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes_create or calendar_create_event. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or 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.