update_reminder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates an update operation but omits details like whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if both optional fields are omitted, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise with a purpose sentence followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and each part is relevant. Minor improvement could be more international phrasing, but overall efficient.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains purpose and parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, or behavior on missing id. It meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: reminder_id usage via list_reminders, new_title as optional, and new_due with a format example. This adds meaning 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 tool modifies a reminder's title or due time, specifying the resource (reminder) and action (modify). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_reminder, delete_reminder, or complete_reminder.

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 advises first using list_reminders to obtain the id, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for completing reminders) or mention alternatives.

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