folder_update_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus' and describes the return value structure. This is transparent and honest.

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 short (5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second warns against misuse, third describes output, fourth declares safety, fifth gives usage pattern. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format ({ description, plannedChanges }) and asserts read-only behavior. For a dry-run tool with no nested objects, this is complete and sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for id and name. The description adds a high-level usage hint ('pass the same args'), which is helpful but not essential. The schema already does a good job, so baseline 3 is adjusted upward modestly.

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 tool's purpose: preview what folder_update would do without making changes. It distinguishes from the sibling tool folder_update by explicitly warning against using this tool for actual updates, and it explains the output shape.

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 explicit when-to-use (dry-run), when-not-to-use (do not update), and suggests an alternative (folder_update). It also advises passing the same arguments to both tools.

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