project_mark_reviewed

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

Discloses side effects: writes to OmniFocus, sets syncPending = true. Notes that the return field 'name' may be null if the project was deleted between write and read. With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden and does so comprehensively.

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?

Concise yet thorough: front-loaded with purpose, then usage, return format, side effects, and example. No wasted words; every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape. Covers purpose, usage, side effects, and example, making it complete for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 single parameter 'id' is sufficiently described in the schema. The description adds value by reinforcing the context ('when you have a project id') and providing an example usage, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states it is a convenience alias for review_mark_reviewed, marks a single project as reviewed, and sets dates. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like review_list_due and review_mark_reviewed by specifying its specific use case.

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 states when to use ('when you have a project id and want a single-call review operation') and when not to use ('Do not use to list projects due for review'), providing a named alternative (review_list_due).

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