review_set_interval

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

Discloses side effects (writes to OmniFocus, sets syncPending=true) and return value structure (id, name, reviewIntervalDays) with behavior notes (post-mutation lookup, null if deleted). Since no annotations exist, the description fully carries this burden.

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; 4-5 sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, then guidelines, return info, side effects, and examples. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Completely covers the tool's operation for a simple mutation with 2 params and no output schema. The return value explanation compensates for missing output schema, and side effects are disclosed. 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 baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates that days sets the interval and null removes it. No additional param-level details.

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 verb 'set' and resource 'project's review interval'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'review_mark_reviewed' by stating not to use it for marking a project as reviewed.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions using null to remove schedule and directs to prefer review_mark_reviewed for marking reviewed. Includes examples for both cases.

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