import_taskpaper

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses parsing behavior, project matching logic, automatic tag creation, and output structure. It also notes that orphan IDs are dropped and that writes occur. Some details like idempotency or error handling are missing, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 moderately sized and well-structured. It includes an example and practical notes. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure ({ tasks, warnings }) and the behavior of orphan IDs. It also mentions the need for sync_trigger. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it provides an example of the text format and explains the effect of targetProjectId (overrides headings). This additional context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 imports tasks from TaskPaper text into OmniFocus. It specifies the verb (import), resource (tasks), and target (OmniFocus). It differentiates from the sibling export_taskpaper by explicitly advising against using for export.

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 clear usage guidance: when to import TaskPaper text, mentions project heading mapping and fallback to inbox, advises to call sync_trigger for propagation, and explicitly warns not to use for export. Could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating alternatives for other operations, but the sibling list provides context.

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