project_drop_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus.' and describes the return value { description, plannedChanges }. This provides good transparency, though details on error handling or edge cases are missing.

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 concise, with 4 sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage warning, return object, read-only guarantee, and example usage pattern. No unnecessary 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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, usage instructions, return type, and safety guarantee. It could mention error behavior or input validation, but overall it is adequately complete for typical use.

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?

The schema already describes the 'id' parameter with a pattern and description, providing 100% coverage. The description adds context by referencing 'the same args you would to the write tool', but does not add further detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a dry-run for project_drop: 'Preview what project_drop would do without making any changes.' It distinguishes from the sibling project_drop by using 'Preview' and 'Do NOT use to actually drop a project — use project_drop instead.'

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 (to preview) and when not to (use project_drop for actual drop). It also provides a usage pattern: 'pass the same args you would to the write tool, inspect plannedChanges, then call the write tool once approved.'

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