edit_item

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, reversibility, or authorization needs. It only states editing and moving capabilities, omitting any behavioral traits like whether changes are permanent or trigger notifications.

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 efficiently convey core purpose and an additional capability. No wasted words, though a slightly more structured presentation could improve scannability. Still highly concise.

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 22 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too brief. It fails to explain return behavior, error conditions, or the fallback identification logic (id vs name) hinted in the schema. More detail is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the param descriptions. The mention of moving tasks via certain fields is already covered in the schema, so it adds no new semantic value.

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 clearly specifies the tool edits existing tasks or projects in OmniFocus and explicitly mentions it also supports moving tasks. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_omnifocus_task' (adds new) and 'remove_item' (deletes), though there is overlap with 'move_task'. The purpose is well-defined.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_task' for moving tasks, or 'add_omnifocus_task' for creation. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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