project_move_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus.' This fully discloses the read-only nature. It also describes the return value structure. No contradictions.

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 of 4 sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (Preview), then usage guidance, then behavior, then example workflow. No extraneous 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's simple dry-run nature, the description completely covers purpose, usage, behavior, constraints, and return value. No output schema exists, but it describes the return shape ({ description, plannedChanges }). No gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id, folderId). The description adds 'pass the same args you would to the write tool' as context but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Preview') and resource ('what project_move would do'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'project_move' by noting 'Do NOT use to actually move a project — use project_move instead.' The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Preview what project_move would do') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use to actually move a project'). It includes a typical workflow: pass same args, inspect plannedChanges, then call the write tool. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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