project_batch_complete

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: projects are hidden from active views, atomic validation, best-effort per-index outcomes, side effects (writes to OmniFocus, sets meta.syncPending = true), and need for sync_trigger. It also details the return format.

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 paragraph with dense, useful information. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). No redundancy.

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 batch mutation tool with atomic validation and best-effort semantics, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, side effects, return format, and synchronization requirements. No output schema but the description compensates.

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 the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It provides an example and notes that the response carries the project name, but the parameter description is already clear in the schema.

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 it marks many OmniFocus projects as completed in a single JXA round trip, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool project_complete by recommending this tool over repeated calls when completing more than one project.

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?

It explicitly recommends use for completing multiple projects over repeated project_complete calls, and describes atomic validation and best-effort execution. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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