reclaim-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The return statement mentions 'Updated focus settings' but doesn't describe what that contains or confirmation behavior.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides well-organized parameter documentation in bullet-like format, and ends with a return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description does well on parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema helps (so return values don't need description), but critical information about permissions, side effects, and error handling is missing. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter documentation. It clearly explains all 6 parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the enum values for 'defense_aggression'. The only minor gap is not explaining that only 'settings_id' is required while others are optional with null defaults.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('focus time settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_focus_settings' or explain what makes 'update' distinct from other focus-related operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing existing settings), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_focus_settings' or 'lock_focus_block'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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