NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mark a reminder as COMPLETADO') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary words, but the 'Args:' section could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'id' as 'Reminder ID (e.g., R87)', including an example format. However, it doesn't cover constraints like ID length or validation rules, leaving gaps despite compensating somewhat for the low schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Mark a reminder as COMPLETADO') and resource ('reminder'), with the scope 'with today's date' distinguishing it from potential alternatives like marking with a custom date. It uses precise terminology that differentiates it from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_create, nexo_reminder_delete, and nexo_reminder_update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for marking reminders as completed, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., the reminder must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot be used on already completed reminders), or comparisons to related tools like nexo_reminder_update, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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