task_set_alarms

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: atomic replacement, requirement for task dates when using relative kinds, return of updated task, and the fact that mutations do not sync automatically (requires sync_trigger for cross-device visibility). It also notes that empty array is equivalent to task_clear_alarms. 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that includes the action, behavior, alternatives, error cases, and two examples. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers inputs, behavior, errors, alternatives, and syncing. A minor gap is that it doesn't detail the structure of the returned 'updated task', but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value beyond the schema by explaining the equivalence of empty array to task_clear_alarms, detailing the three kinds of alarms with examples, and clarifying the offsetSeconds sign meaning. This additional context justifies a score of 4.

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 'Replace the alarm/notification set on an OmniFocus task atomically', specifying the verb 'replace' and the resource 'alarm/notification set on an OmniFocus task'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'task_clear_alarms' by noting that an empty array is equivalent, and provides examples showing usage.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (to replace alarms), mentions the alternative 'task_clear_alarms' for removing all alarms with no payload, and states the error condition where relative kinds require the task to already have the corresponding date set, returning a VALIDATION error. This provides clear guidance.

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