project_batch_drop

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

With no annotations, description fully covers: atomic validation, best-effort execution, response structure, side effects (writes to OmniFocus, sets syncPending), and need to call sync_trigger. Provides comprehensive behavioral insight.

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?

Dense but well-structured: starts with main verb, explains behavior, compares to alternatives, describes validation and execution, and provides an example. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous text.

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 complexity of batch operation with atomic validation and best-effort execution, description fully explains all critical aspects: the process, response format, side effects, and sync requirements. No output schema but return structure is described.

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 already describes the 'items' parameter. Description adds example usage and confirms each item is { id }, but does not add new semantic information beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Cancel (drop) many OmniFocus projects' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from project_delete and project_drop, and explains that dropped projects remain but are inactive.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this tool over repeated project_drop calls whenever dropping more than one project.' Also distinguishes from project_delete and explains atomic validation and best-effort execution, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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