edit_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Edit' without explaining whether it partially updates or overwrites fields, how items are identified (id vs. name), or what side effects occur. The rich schema suggests complex behavior that is completely unaddressed.

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, taut sentence that is efficient but under-specifies. It avoids fluff but fails to provide substance beyond the purpose, making it less useful than a structurally complete description.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain update semantics, item selection, or the meaning of the numerous optional fields. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.

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 meaning. It does not clarify the roles of id/name for identification, nor the meaning of new_* fields for updates. The agent is left to infer everything from parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 states a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('task or project in OmniFocus'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that add or remove items. However, it does not specify what aspects can be edited (e.g., name, notes, dates), leaving the purpose slightly underspecified.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_omnifocus_task or remove_item. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing item ID or name, nor any exclusion criteria.

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