Mark projects reviewed

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by noting that a single timestamp is applied and that next review dates are returned. It does not disclose edge-case behavior, such as what happens if some ids are invalid or already reviewed, but the output schema and non-destructive annotation provide some context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and then states the return value. There is no redundancy or filler, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 tool's low parameter count, its output schema, and the annotations, the description covers the essential behavior well: what is marked, what timestamp behavior applies, and what is returned. It is slightly incomplete on usage boundaries and parameter details, but those are minor for this simple operation.

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 ids parameter is well described in the schema, and the description's 'one timestamp' hints at how review_date behaves. However, the optional review_date parameter lacks explicit semantics such as its format or what null means, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 and resource: it marks projects as reviewed and states that it returns OmniFocus-generated next review dates. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as edit_item or complete_items by naming alternatives.

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 phrase 'confirmed projects' implies that the tool should be used after a user has explicitly confirmed that projects were reviewed, which gives some usage context. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over related actions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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