manage_folders

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description discloses the specific consequence of removal ('permanently deletes contained projects and tasks') and clarifies the mixed read/write nature. This adds valuable context not present in the structured annotations.

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 totaling ~30 words, front-loaded with the operation list and immediately followed by the critical destructive warning. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, operations, and destructive consequences well. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of folder operations make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, and each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by tying actions to mutability (e.g., 'add/edit mutate'), enriching the meaning of the action parameter. However, it does not describe parameter formats beyond schema, so it stays just above the baseline.

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 list ('List, get, add, edit, or remove') with a clear resource ('OmniFocus folders'), immediately distinguishing this tool from siblings like manage_tags or manage_perspectives. It enumerates all supported operations, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 context on when to use the tool (any folder operation) and clarifies the safety profile of each action ('list/get are read-only, add/edit mutate, remove permanently deletes'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the operation breakdown serves as implicit guidance for selection.

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