create_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the notify default ('a reminder with a due TIME gets an alarm ... Set notify=False for a silent due time'), that user-supplied alarms override it, that the app holds only one early reminder, and that urgent/repeat require a due date. It omits failure modes, permissions, and what happens if the list is not found.

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?

It is long but structured as one line per parameter group, front-loaded with purpose, and nearly every clause conveys non-obvious behavior (e.g. the '9 PM with a 15 minute heads-up' example). A few justifications are wordier than needed but none are filler.

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 20-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky/ambiguous inputs well enough to call it correctly. Missing: behavior on invalid list/title, and any indication of what the call returns.

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 0% across 20 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: formats for due, alarms, early_* semantics, priority values, repeat rules, and tag syntax are all spelled out. Gaps remain for notes and flagged, which carry no explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a real Apple Reminder in a list') and clarifies that the list can be a name or id. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like bulk_reminders or create_event beyond a single aside routing nested items to add_subtask.

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 only explicit routing guidance is 'parent: ... prefer the add_subtask tool'. There is no guidance on when to use this versus bulk_reminders, or on required preconditions such as the target list existing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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