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 mentions the action ('unlock') and outcome ('allow rescheduling'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is reversible, side effects on other events, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value note. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 has an output schema (returns a 'Planner action result with updated event state'), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error conditions or dependencies.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains the purpose of both parameters ('calendar_id: The calendar ID containing the focus block', 'event_id: The focus block event ID to unlock'), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it could specify data formats or constraints.

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 ('unlock a focus time block') and the outcome ('allow it to be rescheduled'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lock_focus_block' (opposite action) and 'reschedule_focus_block' (which likely requires unlocking first). It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource type.

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 when a focus block needs to be rescheduled, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reschedule_focus_block' directly or other event management tools. It provides some context but lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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