edit_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states 'Edit' which implies mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if ID not found), or response format. For a complex 16-parameter mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place: 'Edit' (action), 'a task or project' (targets), 'in OmniFocus' (context). No redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 high complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a powerful edit tool with many parameters, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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 16 parameters with clear descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'replaceTags' relates to 'addTags/removeTags') or provide usage examples.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('a task or project in OmniFocus'), providing specific action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_omnifocus_task' and 'remove_item' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'batch_add_items' might also involve modifications).

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 an existing item), exclusions (e.g., when batch operations might be better), or comparisons to siblings like 'batch_add_items' for multiple edits. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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