task_drop_describe

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

The description states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus.' This is critical behavioral information for a tool that could be mistaken for a write operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of transparency.

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 with only three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, providing a negative directive, and detailing behavior and return value. No extraneous information is included.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and side effects. It lacks explicit error handling details but is sufficient for correct invocation alongside its sibling tool task_drop.

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 descriptions for both parameters (id and at) in the schema. The description adds context that the same args should be passed as to the write tool, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview what task_drop would do without making any changes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool task_drop by instructing not to use it for actual drops. The return value is described, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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: 'Do NOT use to actually drop a task — use task_drop instead.' It also outlines a workflow: pass the same arguments, inspect plannedChanges, then call the write tool. This clearly differentiates usage from alternatives.

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