omnifocus_complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: changes via SQLite won't sync until OmniFocus restart. However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or failure behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action stated first and the important restart caveat placed in a compact parenthetical. It is efficient and every sentence earns its place, though it could add a brief sibling distinction without becoming verbose.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this is minimally sufficient: it names the action and flags a critical sync behavior. It leaves some gaps, such as what the caller should expect after invocation and what 'standard version' means, but the simple schema lowers the bar.

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 already documents taskId as 'Task ID to complete (required)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and clearly identifies the resource and target state ('task as complete'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling omnifocus_update_task, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as omnifocus_update_task. The parenthetical mentions a sync caveat, but it does not explain when this tool should or should not be used, leaving an agent without decision context.

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