Update Project Note

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds behavioral details: empty string clears the note, append flag behavior, and priority of projectId over projectName. No contradiction with annotations, and it goes beyond structured fields to provide useful nuance.

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 clear header, args list, returns note, and examples. It is concise yet complete, front-loading the main purpose and providing necessary details without excess verbiage.

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?

With 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all input parameters with examples, explains the return type (updated project object), and handles edge cases like clearing and appending. No gaps observed.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by explaining priority logic (projectId takes precedence), requiredness (at least one of projectId/projectName), and the effect of empty string on note. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Update the note/description on an existing project in OmniFocus.' The verb 'update' and resource 'project note' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like omnifocus_update_project (which updates other fields) and omnifocus_update_task_note (for task notes).

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 scenarios for use (set by ID, by name, clear, append) through examples and parameter explanations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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