omnifocus_set_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful side effect: directSqlAccess is faster but requires an OmniFocus restart to sync. This goes beyond the schema's simple description, though it does not disclose behavior for taskLimit changes.

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 short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides focused elaboration on the one parameter that benefits from behavioral context. 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?

For a two-parameter configuration tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description is adequate. It includes the most important contextual detail (restart requirement), though it does not mention taskLimit at the tool level or describe return behavior. No output schema is present, so that omission is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for directSqlAccess by specifying the speed/restart trade-off and clarifying that it applies to update/complete operations, which is more precise than the schema's 'write operations'. No additional semantics for taskLimit are needed since the schema already documents it well.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('configuration settings'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also contrasts naturally with the sibling omnifocus_get_config, distinguishing the setter from the getter without 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 gives clear context for when the directSqlAccess setting is applicable ('For Standard version') and explains what it affects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the 'Update' verb and the tool's name imply its role as the configuration setter.

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