Update an existing Apple reminder by UID, including title, due date, notes, priority, list, or completion status; set completed to true to mark it done.
Change a reminder found by uid (from reminders_list_incomplete). Pass completed=true to mark it done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| uid | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| completed | No | ||
| list_name | No | ||
| timezone_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions requirements, no statement that omitted/null fields are left unchanged, no confirmation of reversibility or of what the response returns. Only the completed=true effect is explained.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the identifying action and the uid source, with no filler. Its brevity is a virtue stylistically even though the content is thin for this many parameters.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unspecified: how partial updates behave, what each field means, and what happens on success. An agent would have to guess at most parameters before calling it.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description should compensate but only addresses uid (source: reminders_list_incomplete) and completed (true = done). due, notes, title, priority, list_name and timezone_name are entirely undocumented, as is the null-default partial-update semantics.
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 and resource ('Change a reminder') and names the sibling that supplies the required uid (reminders_list_incomplete), which separates it from reminders_create, reminders_delete and the calendar tools. It does not describe the update scope (full replace vs partial patch), but the core purpose is unmistakable.
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 implies a fetch-then-update workflow by pointing at reminders_list_incomplete as the source of the uid, and gives one concrete usage hint ('Pass completed=true to mark it done'). It does not state when to use this instead of reminders_create or what to do about fields that should not change.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.