Manage perspective

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds that changes are made in place and that OmniFocus does not permit perspective creation or deletion through automation. This is useful context for an agent forming expectations, though it omits details like defaulting behavior when rules/aggregation are null.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy; the core action is front-loaded and the platform limitation is stated as a single useful qualifier. Every clause 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 mutating tool with four optional parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves key operational questions unanswered: how to identify the perspective, what null values mean, and whether rules and aggregation can be updated independently. The existence of an output schema lowers the burden for return-value details, but targeting remains underspecified.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It maps conceptually to 'rules' via 'filter rules' but gives no guidance on the two perspective identifiers, the role of aggregation, or which parameters are needed to target and modify a perspective.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update'), a precise resource ('a custom perspective's filter rules'), and the in-place scope. The second sentence clarifies that perspective creation/deletion is unavailable, distinguishing this tool from potential management siblings and making its role unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the update path for existing custom perspectives and warns that create/delete operations are not supported via automation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like query_perspectives or list the conditions for selecting perspective_id versus perspective_name, but the boundary is clear enough.

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