add_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid project, how the system responds, error conditions, or relationships with sibling tools. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description alone.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Add a new project') and the target resource ('to OmniFocus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'add_omnifocus_task', which creates ambiguity about when to use one versus the other for project-related operations.

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 like 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'batch_add_items'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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