update_tagUpdate an OmniFocus tag's name or status to active, on hold, or dropped. Specify the tag by name or ID to modify its details.
Update an OmniFocus tag's name or status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the tag | |
| status | No | New status for the tag | |
| name_or_id | Yes | Tag name or ID to update |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'name or status' detail and does not disclose side effects on tasks using the tag, reversibility, or permission requirements; no contradiction exists, but little context is added beyond 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?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with three self-explanatory 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?
The simple update semantics are adequately covered by the concise description and full schema documentation, and an output schema is present so return values need not be described. Minor omissions like explicit sibling routing or downstream effects of status changes exist, but they are not essential for correct invocation.
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%: all three parameters (name, status, name_or_id) have descriptions. The description's phrase 'name or status' simply echoes the schema's property descriptions and provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.
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 operation and resource: 'Update an OmniFocus tag's name or status', naming both the entity (tag) and the mutable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and update_folder by specifying exactly what can be changed.
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 implies usage by explaining what can be updated, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_tag or delete_tag. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so the decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.