MCP OmniFocus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates fields but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a mutation requiring permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (implied unchanged but not stated), or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Update a task') and enumerates the modifiable fields. There is no wasted language, and it directly conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 8 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for safe invocation. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for missing annotation and output information, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters with details like formats (ISO dates), defaults (null), and constraints (e.g., tag_ids cannot remove existing tags). The description lists the updatable fields (name, project name, tags, note, due date, defer date), which aligns with parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a task in OmniFocus'), and lists the specific fields that can be modified (name, project name, tags, note, due date, defer date). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' (creation vs. update) and 'complete_task' (status change vs. field updates), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id), when not to use it (e.g., for deleting tasks), or refer to sibling tools like 'complete_task' for status changes. Usage is implied from the action 'update,' but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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