clickup_update_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden, yet it never says whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to fields not supplied, whether permissions or workspace scoping are needed, or whether changes are reversible. The due_date format hint is the only behavioral detail, and that is already duplicated in the schema.

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 tight sentences with the required identifier and updatable fields front-loaded, no filler. Slightly repetitive in restating the due_date format already present in the schema.

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 six-parameter mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what can be changed. It falls short on partial-update semantics and permission/scope expectations, which matter for a write tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so all six parameters including workspace_id are documented in structured fields; the description adds little beyond repeating the due_date format. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description omits workspace_id entirely.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (a reminder) plus the keying parameter reminder_id, and enumerates which fields can change. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like clickup_create_reminder or clickup_search_reminders, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus clickup_create_reminder or clickup_search_reminders, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the implicit reminder_id. The only guidance is that reminder_id is required, which the schema already states.

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