complete_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states a mutation ('marks as completed') but does not explain side effects such as irreversibility, status changes, notifications, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is clear and front-loaded, meeting the standard for concise and effective writing.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks detail about what 'completed' entails, any side effects, or expected behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more context is necessary for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'Reminder unique ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Marks a reminder as completed' uses a specific verb ('marks') and resource ('reminder') with a clear action ('as completed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reminder and get_reminders, which handle creation and retrieval.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_reminder or get_reminders). It does not state prerequisites, intended context, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and simple action.

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