add_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it claims to convey.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and a single verb phrase, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, any preconditions, or expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this lack of context, as the tool's behavior and parameter usage remain unclear.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the action. With 9 parameters, the description provides no context for their meaning, formatting, or required options. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 action ('Add') and the specific resource ('a new project to OmniFocus'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_omnifocus_task'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_omnifocus_task' or 'batch_add_items'. It only states the basic function, so the agent has no explicit context for choosing this tool over others.

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