reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it deletes a habit and returns True on success. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related tasks), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a smart habit') and uses a structured Args/Returns format efficiently. However, the Args section repeats the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it lacks behavioral details, usage context, and parameter explanation. The presence of an output schema mitigates this by documenting the return value, but overall coverage remains minimal.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema: it names the parameter ('lineage_id') and specifies it's for deletion, but doesn't explain what a 'lineage_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is inadequate for full clarity, warranting a baseline score.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a smart habit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'delete_task' or explain what makes a 'smart habit' different from other deletable entities, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disable_habit' or 'delete_task'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the habit must exist or be active) or consequences, offering minimal usage direction.

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