task_set_repetition

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it overwrites existing rules, returns only the updated task ID (not full object), and mutations don't sync automatically. This is helpful, though it could include more on error handling or idempotency.

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 two core sentences and two examples, all front-loaded and waste-free. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating action, overriding behavior, alternatives, return value, sync caveat, and illustrative examples.

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?

For a tool with nested input and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, return format, sync behavior, and examples. It doesn't need to repeat schema details. A small gap is lack of mention of error scenarios or validation, but overall it's complete enough.

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 detailed descriptions. The description adds value through two examples showing valid rule structures, which helps clarify the nested object even though the schema already explains it.

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 action ('Set the repetition rule') and the resource ('OmniFocus task'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'task_clear_repetition' by mentioning its purpose for removal, and provides concrete 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 guides usage by noting when to use the alternative (task_clear_repetition to remove) and warns about sync behavior (call sync_trigger for cross-device visibility). However, it doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or compare with other similar tools like task_set_alarms.

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