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 'locks' a focus block to prevent rescheduling, which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the lock is reversible, rate limits, or what 'updated event state' entails. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections add necessary structure without redundancy, though the Returns section could be slightly more detailed given the lack of output schema context.

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 (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (though not detailed in the description), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed return value explanation, which the output schema might address but isn't described here.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'calendar_id' identifies the calendar containing the focus block and 'event_id' specifies the focus block event to lock. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., integer/string specifics).

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 specific action ('Lock a focus time block') and the resource ('focus time block'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unlock_focus_block' and 'reschedule_focus_block'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage by stating it prevents rescheduling, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unlock_focus_block' or 'reschedule_focus_block'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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