nexo_reminder_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite token dependency but omits side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive or reversible), idempotency, or permission requirements. The 'append' action implies mutation, which is consistent.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical prerequisite guidance. Every word is meaningful and 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential usage (purpose, prerequisite, required parameters via schema). It lacks details on return value or error conditions, but for a simple append operation, it is sufficiently 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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that the `read_token` parameter comes from `nexo_reminder_get`, providing cross-tool dependency context that aids correct parameter selection.

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 'Append a note to reminder history,' specifying the verb (append), resource (reminder history), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_create or nexo_reminder_get by focusing on note appending.

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 includes an explicit prerequisite: 'call `nexo_reminder_get` first and pass its READ_TOKEN,' guiding the agent on when to use this tool. It implies not to use it without that token, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative conditions.

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