reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reschedules a focus block and mentions optional parameters trigger AI rescheduling, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens to overlapping events. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters and output, though the AI reschedule note could be more concise.

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 (4 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations but an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains parameters and mentions the return type, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects) and doesn't fully leverage the output schema to detail the 'Planner action result' structure, leaving room for improvement.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'calendar_id' contains the focus block, 'event_id' identifies it, and optional 'start_time'/'end_time' use ISO format with AI fallback. However, it doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., if both times are null) or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps despite covering all 4 parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('reschedule') and resource ('focus time block'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'lock_focus_block' or 'unlock_focus_block' by focusing on time adjustment rather than access control. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other time-related tools like 'add_time_to_task' or 'update_task', which could involve similar time management concepts.

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., needing an existing focus block), exclusions (e.g., not for non-focus events), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_task' or 'lock_focus_block' that might handle related time adjustments. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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