task_complete_describe

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus.' It also states the return format '{ description, plannedChanges }' and confirms no mutations.

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 (two sentences plus an example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose example could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type and the dry-run pattern. All parameters are documented in schema, and the context of usage with the sibling tool is clear. Complete for a preview 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions passing 'the same args you would to the write tool' but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema fully describes 'at' and 'id'.

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 purpose: 'Preview what task_complete would do without making any changes.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'task_complete' and uses a specific verb+resource ('preview completion').

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 guidance: 'Do NOT use to actually complete a task — use task_complete instead.' Also explains the dry-run pattern and advises to inspect plannedChanges before calling the write tool.

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