task_drop

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: marks as dropped/deferred, removes from active view, idempotent (noChange flag), reversible, side effects (sets droppedAt and syncPending), and return format. 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 and well-structured, with a clear front-loaded purpose, key facts (reversible, idempotent), an example, and no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is thorough, covering return values (done or noChange with id and name), side effects, and an example. It does not describe error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema, it is highly complete for agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (id, at). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional ISO-8601 date and the default behavior, but these are already present in the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 drops an OmniFocus task, marks it as dropped/deferred, and removes it from active view. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like task_undrop, task_complete, and task_delete, guiding the agent to use the correct tool.

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 on when to use (dropping/deferring a task), when not to use (completing or deleting), and mentions an alternative (task_undrop for reversal). It also explains idempotency and return values, aiding correct invocation.

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