review_mark_reviewed

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully compensates by detailing side effects (writes to OmniFocus, sets syncPending = true) and potential edge cases (name being null if project deleted). The return shape is also specified.

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 (~70 words) and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, usage guidelines, return info, side effects, and an example. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, return values, side effects, and an example, making it self-contained for an agent.

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% with a clear description of the id parameter. The tool description adds an example usage, which provides context for how the parameter is used, slightly enhancing semantics beyond 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 the tool marks a project as reviewed, setting lastReviewDate to now and advancing nextReviewDate by the review interval. It distinguishes itself from review_set_interval by explicitly noting it should not be used to change the interval.

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 guidance: use after completing a weekly review, and do not use to change the review interval, with a clear alternative (review_set_interval). This helps the agent decide when to invoke the tool.

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