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

Although annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'Requires confirm=true to execute' and 'called without it, returns a preview.' This discloses the safety mechanism and preview behavior, which is not captured by annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then a critical constraint. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.

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 the complete schema (all params documented) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspect (confirm requirement) and is fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema; the confirm parameter is fully described in 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 states 'Creates a new task in OmniFocus' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like complete_omnifocus_task, list_omnifocus_tasks, and search_omnifocus_tasks. It precisely conveys the action and target, leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides clear context for use by stating it creates a task, and highlights the confirm=true requirement, which is a critical execution condition. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the self-explanatory name and the presence of dedicated sibling tools make the intended usage clear.

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