reclaim-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or includes rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a destructive operation.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the lack of usage context slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: True if deleted successfully'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but for a deletion tool, it should include more about consequences, alternatives, and error handling to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'task_id' as 'The task ID to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details, validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a task from Reclaim.ai'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_habit' or explain why one would delete a task versus other task-related operations like 'mark_task_complete' or 'stop_task'.

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. With siblings like 'delete_habit', 'mark_task_complete', and 'stop_task', there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus completion or stopping, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.

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