Add an OmniFocus task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that tasks go to the inbox when no project is set and that dates accept ISO 8601. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid project), permission requirements, or what happens on success beyond creation.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds a relevant piece of information: the action, the default inbox behavior, and the date format.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only basic creation, but not the implications of optional parameters, success/failure behavior, return values, or interactions with sync/other tools. It is inadequate for such a parameter-rich 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 50%, and the description adds only a redundant date format note (already present in schema for due/defer). Parameters like name, note, flagged, and estimatedMinutes lack any explanation in either schema or description, leaving the AI without guidance for those inputs.

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 states 'Create a task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit/complete/delete by the 'create' action, and the title confirms the purpose.

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 stating the action and the inbox behavior when no project is provided, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like of_edit_task or of_delete_task. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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