Set task repetition

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds value by disclosing that the operation is 'Verified by read-back' (i.e., the tool confirms the change by reading it back), and by explaining the semantics of schedule_type values (e.g., 'from_completion' = OmniFocus 'Due Again'). It also clarifies that rule_string is ignored when schedule_type is 'none'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the two modes are stated compactly, and the read-back verification is a useful one-liner at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the two input modes, the clearing behavior, and the verification behavior. It doesn't spell out mutual-exclusion rules, but those are already in the schema descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a compact summary of the structured-vs-raw distinction and the '2nd Tuesday monthly' example, which helps an agent understand the overall model without reading every field. It doesn't repeat every schema detail, which is appropriate given the high 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 states a specific verb ('Set or clear') and resource ('a repeating schedule on a task'), and immediately distinguishes the two modes: structured fields vs raw iCal RRULE. It also mentions clearing via schedule_type 'none', which differentiates it from sibling task-editing tools like edit_item or move_task.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (setting/clearing repetition) and explains the two input modes. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can route correctly. The 'Verified by read-back' note adds operational context.

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