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. While it correctly identifies this as an update operation, it fails to mention important behavioral aspects such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or how partial updates are handled. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to parse. While it's somewhat lengthy due to the 11 parameters, every sentence adds value by explaining parameter purposes and formats. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter section dominates the description.

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 complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation) and absence of annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters but falls short on behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more guidance on usage scenarios, error handling, and system behavior during updates.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics with detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including format specifications ('HH:MM'), units ('minutes'), and allowed values ('DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY, YEARLY'). This is particularly valuable since the schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, making the description essential for understanding parameter meanings.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing smart habit'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_task' or explain what distinguishes a 'smart habit' from other entities in the system, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'create_habit', 'delete_habit', 'disable_habit', or 'enable_habit'. It mentions the tool updates existing habits but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper selection.

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