nexo_reminder_restore

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool mutates state (restore to PENDING) and requires a specific token, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens if the reminder is already in PENDING state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences succinctly convey purpose and a crucial instruction. No redundant information, every word earns its place.

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 core action and a key prerequisite, but lacks information about the return value (critical since no output schema exists) and does not explain what 'soft-deleted' means. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a notable gap.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds value by explaining read_token's origin (from nexo_reminder_get) and its role, which goes beyond the schema's simple description. For the id parameter, the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 verb 'restore', the resource 'soft-deleted reminder', and the target state 'PENDING'. This distinguishes it from siblings like nexo_reminder_complete, nexo_reminder_create, and nexo_reminder_delete.

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 instructs the agent to call nexo_reminder_get first and pass its read_token, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., if the reminder is not soft-deleted) or mention alternatives like nexo_reminder_delete for permanent deletion.

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