complete_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema - that the operation is reversible by passing completed=False - which tells the agent this is a non-destructive toggle, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or whether other reminder fields are touched.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the optional-mode detail parenthetically appended. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important information comes first.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its inverse but omits what 'id' refers to and what happens on an invalid or already-completed reminder. Adequate, but with recognizable gaps for a state-changing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so nothing in the schema explains what the parameters mean. The description usefully clarifies the semantics of 'completed' (true = complete, false = incomplete), but the required 'id' parameter is left entirely undefined, so the compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a reminder') plus the exact state transition it produces, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related update_reminder sibling, which could plausibly perform the same mutation.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the completed=False note, letting an agent infer this is the tool for toggling completion rather than general edits. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_reminder or delete_reminder, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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