Apply multiple edits to OmniFocus tasks and projects in one call, updating names, dates, tags, statuses, and relationships together.
PREFERRED: Edit multiple tasks/projects in ONE call. 12x faster than individual edit_item calls. Always use this for 2+ items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edits | Yes | Array of edit operations to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers little: it asserts '12x faster' (an unverifiable performance claim) but says nothing about atomicity, whether a single bad edit aborts the whole batch, permission requirements, or what errors look like. For a bulk mutation tool this is a significant omission.
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?
Three short sentences with the recommendation front-loaded, then the rationale, then the decision rule. No filler, 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?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description should explain what a batch call returns and how partial failures surface, but it is silent on both. The rich nested schema compensates for edit-field semantics, so the gap is narrow but real for a destructive bulk tool.
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% and the single 'edits' array has per-field descriptions covering every edit kind, including edge cases like folder matching and empty-string date clearing. The description adds nothing about the array's structure, ordering, or size limits, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'Edit multiple tasks/projects in ONE call.' The batching scope is exactly what distinguishes it from the sibling edit_item, so an agent can select it 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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Always use this for 2+ items' and names the alternative (individual edit_item calls) as the thing it replaces. It stops short of an explicit when-not (single-item edits) and gives no guidance on large batch sizes or partial-failure handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.