task_batch_update_describe

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus' and describes the return shape. This is strong transparency for a preview tool, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage warning, and return value with workflow. Each sentence earns its place, no fluff. Slightly verbose but well-structured.

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?

The description explains the dry-run workflow, return shape ({description, plannedChanges}), and how to use it with the write tool. Given no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Could mention error cases, but overall complete.

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 detailed descriptions for each field. The description adds only that parameters should match those of task_batch_update and that items is an array of {id, patch} pairs. This is helpful but not significantly beyond 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 'Preview what task_batch_update would do without making any changes.' It identifies the tool as a dry-run for task_batch_update and distinguishes it from sibling task_batch_update by explicitly warning against using it for actual updates. The verb 'preview' and resource 'task_batch_update' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says when to use (preview), when not to use (do not actually update tasks), and provides a full workflow: 'pass the same args you would to the write tool, inspect plannedChanges, then call the write tool once approved.' This is clear and actionable guidance.

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