buzz_reminder_done

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the due-date gate on cancellation and the "Agent mode only" execution requirement. However it never discloses what a successful finish actually does on the wire (the schema's dry_run hint suggests something is signed/uploaded) or whether marking done is reversible.

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?

Front-loads the action verb, then the two modes, then the id format, then the mode gate — all in roughly three clauses with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint an agent needs before calling.

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 3-parameter mutation-ish tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, both modes, the id format, the due-date constraint, and the agent-mode prerequisite. The only meaningful gap is the return/confirmation behavior after a successful finish, which the agent would have to discover at call time.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by adding meaning the schema lacks: the `reminder` value must be ≥8 hex characters and comes from buzz_reminders, and `cancel` is not just a flag but is required for not-yet-due reminders. The `dry_run` parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its verbose schema description.

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?

"Finish a reminder" is a specific verb+resource, and the description immediately splits the operation into two distinguishable modes (mark done vs. cancel). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling buzz_remind (which creates reminders), so an agent must infer the boundary, but the reference to buzz_reminders for ids anchors it in the right workflow.

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?

Explicitly says when to pass `cancel: true` and adds a real conditional rule: a reminder that isn't due yet can only be cancelled, not completed. It also implies the prerequisite of pulling ids from buzz_reminders. It stops short of stating what to do on a bad/unknown id or what to do if the reminder is already done.

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