set_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation ('Create and persist') and explains scheduling behavior, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or idempotency. For a create tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, though the persistence aspect is mentioned.

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded and parameter details following. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered. The description provides enough to call the tool correctly: it explains the main purpose, the key parameters, and points to the sibling for reading. Minor omissions like authentication or exact behavior on existing reminders are not critical given the simplicity and output schema.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for two of three parameters: 'kind selects once, session, daily, or random scheduling' and 'due_at_iso is an ISO datetime used for a once reminder.' The 'message' parameter is not elaborated, but it is self-explanatory. The description compensates for the lack of schema documentation on key parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create and persist a Hub reminder.' It also specifies the scheduling kinds and distinguishes itself from list_reminders, which is a sibling that reads rather than creates.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool (to create) and when to use the alternative: 'Use list_reminders to read existing reminders without creating one.' This gives clear context and an alternative, fully covering usage guidance.

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