task_set_waiting_on

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses side effects: writes tag + note, sets meta.syncPending = true. It also explains round-trips through task_get and the return format. No hidden behaviors omitted.

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 efficiently structured: starts with purpose, then details of behavior, then usage guidelines, then return value and side effects. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Appropriate length for the tool's 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 no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, side effects, return format, and usage context. It also mentions the waiting-on resource. No gaps identified.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: explains whom as person/team/system, what as optional short description, since defaults to now and backfill use, followUpAfter drives daysOverdue. Provides an example call. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 records that a task is waiting on someone/something, tags with @waiting, and writes a structured block. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying what it does not do (completion/scheduling) and mentioning related tools like task_clear_waiting_on. The verb 'Record' and resource 'task waiting on' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to systematize follow-ups' and 'do NOT use for task completion or scheduling,' providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance. Also mentions the omnifocus://waiting-on resource for surfacing results.

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