manage_perspectives

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds crucial context by specifying 'update rewrites rules in place and never creates or deletes a perspective' and 'list/get are read-only'. This tells the agent exactly what destructive behavior occurs and what does not, going beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with action verbs, no filler. Every clause adds value, making it both concise and structurally sound.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with nested rules, the description conveys high-level purpose, read-only vs destructive actions, and distinguishes perspectives from tags. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists; the schema covers rule details. Missing explicit 'read first before update' but the schema's rules description handles it. A touch more could push to 5.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema (e.g., 'Perspectives are saved views, not tags' is already in the schema). Baseline 3 applies due to full schema 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List, inspect, and edit OmniFocus custom perspectives and their filter rules.' It explicitly distinguishes perspectives from tags ('Perspectives are saved views, not tags.'), separating it from the sibling tool manage_tags. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context: 'Use this to explain why a perspective shows what it shows, or to change its rules.' It also clarifies read-only vs mutating actions. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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