reclaim-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool enables a habit and returns an empty dict on success, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens if the habit isn't disabled, or any side effects like notifications. The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the structured schema fields.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Empty dict on success'), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'lineage_id' by specifying it's 'The habit lineage ID to enable'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately by explaining what the parameter represents, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the type.

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 ('enable a disabled habit') and the outcome ('to resume scheduling'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'disable_habit' or 'update_habit' beyond the obvious opposite action.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the habit must be disabled), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'disable_habit' or 'update_habit' that might affect habit status.

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