nexo_reminder_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation as appending a note, but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what the side effects are. The read_token implies a read-before-write pattern but is not elaborated. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a mutation 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first conveys the core purpose, and the second provides a critical usage hint. Every sentence is valuable, with no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and effective.

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 description covers the main function and the essential prerequisite, but it does not explain the return value or result of the operation. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally describe what the agent can expect after appending a note. The lack of this information reduces completeness. However, the schema covers all input parameters, so it is partially complete.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description's text adds the IMPORTANT note about the read_token, which reinforces the schema. However, it does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Append a note to reminder history.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_update (which updates reminder fields) or nexo_reminder_get (which retrieves a reminder). The mention of 'history' further differentiates it.

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 explicitly states a critical prerequisite in bold: 'call `nexo_reminder_get` first and pass its READ_TOKEN.' This provides direct guidance on when and how to use the tool, including the dependency on a sibling tool. It helps the agent avoid errors and understand the correct invocation order.

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