update_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 so well: it discloses replace-vs-merge semantics for tags/links/alarms, clearing behavior, the alarm-follows-due side effect, notify=False silencing, and that location alarms are untouched. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior for invalid ids.

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?

Dense but well-organized one-line-per-parameter layout, front-loaded with the general update rule. Given 20 undocumented parameters, the length is largely earned, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is strong on the tricky fields but silent on notes, title, flagged, priority, and the non-obvious repeat_count/repeat_interval, leaving an agent to guess at several parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it explains roughly 13 of 20 parameters in detail (due, move_to, parent, all five early_* units, repeat, tags, links, alarms, notify). It leaves notes, title, flagged, priority, repeat_count, and repeat_interval completely unexplained.

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 ("Update a reminder by id") plus the crucial scope qualifier that only provided fields change, which separates it from create_reminder/delete_reminder. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 partial-update semantics and the clear-value conventions ('' clears, [] removes, omit to keep) imply how to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings like complete_reminder, add_subtask, or delete_reminder.

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