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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions optional parameters, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they preserved or reset?). The description lacks context on authentication, side effects, or response behavior beyond the basic return statement.

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 a brief introductory sentence followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the intro states the purpose, and parameter descriptions clarify usage. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the intro could be more front-loaded with key behavioral details instead of just restating the tool name.

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 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more disclosure on safety and prerequisites would improve completeness, though the output schema reduces the need to explain returns.

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—which it does effectively by documenting all 5 parameters with clear semantics. It explains 'task_id' as the identifier to update, optional fields like 'title' and 'duration_minutes', format for 'due_date' (ISO), and enum values for 'status'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover validation rules or interdependencies between 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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing task in Reclaim.ai', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' (creation) and 'delete_task' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'update_habit' or 'update_focus_settings'. The description is specific about what gets updated but doesn't mention scope limitations.

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 task ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creation vs. update), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'mark_task_complete' for status changes or 'prioritize_task' for priority updates. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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