NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only non-empty fields are changed'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what the update operation returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a brief summary sentence followed by a parameter list. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The front-loaded sentence captures the core functionality efficiently, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and hints at partial update behavior. However, it lacks context on permissions, side effects, or error conditions that would be crucial for safe tool invocation without annotations.

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 description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'id' as the Reminder ID, 'description' as new description, 'date' with format YYYY-MM-DD, 'status' as new status, and 'category' as new category. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain allowed values for 'status' or 'category'.

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 ('Update') and resource ('fields of an existing reminder'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nexo_reminder_create' and 'nexo_reminder_delete' by specifying it's for modifying existing reminders rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'nexo_reminder_complete' or 'nexo_reminders'.

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 implies usage context through 'Only non-empty fields are changed,' suggesting partial updates. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'nexo_reminder_complete' for status changes or 'nexo_reminder_create' for new reminders. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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