add_project

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Add a new project' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it creates immediately, if there are duplicate checks, required permissions, or what is returned). This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It lacks necessary detail and structure, such as front-loading key usage instructions or listing required parameters.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens upon success/failure, return values, or how the project is added relative to the OmniFocus hierarchy. The agent lacks crucial context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a new project to OmniFocus' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like add_omnifocus_task which deals with tasks, not projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar project tools if any, but given the sibling list, the name suffices.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this adds a project at the root or into a folder, nor does it compare to batch_add_items or create_tag. An agent has no context to decide between add_project and other tools.

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