reminders_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can mark reminders as completed and how to find them, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if multiple reminders match the title. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary details in the second, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in transparency and completeness for a mutation tool.

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?

The description adds some meaning by noting that reminderId is the 'most reliable method' and that list is 'optional' to narrow search when using title, but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with clear parameter details. This provides marginal value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Mark a reminder as completed') and the resource ('a reminder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reminders_add, reminders_list, and reminders_search. It specifies the exact operation rather than being vague or tautological.

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 when to use this tool by explaining it can find reminders by ID or title with optional list filtering, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like reminders_search for finding reminders without completing them. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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