add_omnifocus_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only adds a performance hint about batching. It says nothing about failure modes (e.g., unknown projectName/projectId), precedence when both projectId and projectName are supplied, whether it mutates existing data, or what is returned on success.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the batching caveat immediately after. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With 13 parameters and a nested repetition object, the fully documented schema compensates for most of the description's brevity. However, for a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the agent without guidance on conflict/precedence behavior and result shape.

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%, including detailed nested docs for repetitionRule, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a SINGLE task to OmniFocus') and emphasizes the single-item scope, which immediately distinguishes it from the batch siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use this for one task, use batch_add_items for 2+ tasks, with a concrete justification (9x faster, single API call). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension rewards.

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