perspective_update

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the partial-patch behavior (only provided fields written), the side effects (writes to OmniFocus, invalidates cache, sets syncPending), the requirement for OmniFocus Pro, and special handling of null/empty values for iconColor and rules. Return value { id } is also specified.

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 fairly long but each sentence is informative and earns its place. It could be slightly more concise, but given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, nested rule structure), the length is justified. Front-loading is good: first sentence defines operation.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all essential aspects: operation, parameter behaviors, constraints, side effects, return value, prerequisites, and examples. No gaps identified.

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%, so baseline is high. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of null iconColor, empty rules array, the round-trip nature of rules, and the constraint that built-in perspectiveIds are rejected. This goes well beyond the schema's own 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 'Partial-patch update of a custom OmniFocus perspective' and enumerates exactly what can be updated (name, rules, iconColor, aggregation). It distinguishes from perspective_create and explicitly mentions that built-in perspectives are not modifiable, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (rename, retune rules, swap aggregation, recolor icon) and when not to use it (DO NOT use for create or built-in perspectives), and even provides alternatives (perspective_create). This is excellent guidance.

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