task_convert_to_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains side effects ('removes the task from the task list and adds a project; sets meta.syncPending = true'), automatic transfer of subtasks/notes/tags/dates, and 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 concise yet comprehensive: every sentence adds value, it front-loads the primary action, and includes examples at the end. No wasted 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 complexity of conversion and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value, side effects, and usage context. Sibling tools are numerous but this tool is well differentiated.

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?

The input schema is 100% covered, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example usage with parameters and explaining the role of folderId and position beyond the schema, though it doesn't repeat default values.

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: 'Promote an OmniFocus task to a first-class project' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task_move and project_create by explicitly contrasting when not to use them.

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 ('when a task has grown in scope') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Do NOT use on tasks already in a project – use task_move instead; use project_create when starting from scratch'), offering clear alternatives.

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