Set repetition

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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark the operation as non-read-only/non-idempotent/non-destructive), the description adds a meaningful guarantee: it restores the previous repetition rule on failure. It also communicates an OmniFocus version prerequisite. This is useful behavioral context, though it stops short of describing auth or side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the failure guarantee earns its place. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with six optional parameters, low schema coverage, and minimal annotations, the description omits the operational details needed to call it correctly. It covers high-level behavior and rollback, but not how to combine or choose parameters; the output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics remain under-specified.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify how the six parameters relate, but it does not. It never explains task_id vs task_name, clear vs method/rule_string, or catch_up_automatically; those are left to inference from the schema.

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 names a concrete action set (set, update, clear), the exact resource (a task's OmniFocus repetition rule), and a version constraint (4.7+). This makes it easy to distinguish from generic sibling tools like edit_item or add_task.

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 intended use is implied by the resource and verb set, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as edit_item, nor what conditions should lead an agent to choose this tool over them.

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