Habitica: check off / score a task

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds real context: scoring is reversible via 'undo', and buying a reward is a distinct purchase action. It also notes the response contains the character's post-scoring stats and a delta, which helps the agent understand the effect of a non-idempotent write. It does not mention permissions/authentication or what happens if the task text is ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the operation is front-loaded, followed by the return-value note. Everything earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return (stats + what changed), so return values are covered. The mutation/reversal semantics are conveyed for a non-idempotent tool. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (ambiguous task text, insufficient gold, already-completed tasks) that the agent would need to know.

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 100% and the schema already defines direction's up/down meaning per task type and confirm's role in reward purchases. The description restates these mappings in prose without adding syntax, constraints, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('record progress') and enumerates exactly which operations it covers across the three Habitica task types (daily/to-do, habit, custom reward). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as habitica_create_task, habitica_update_task, or habitica_delete_task.

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?

It states the contexts in which this tool applies (checking off, undoing, pressing +/- on a habit, buying a reward), which gives the agent a clear trigger. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion (e.g., 'to edit task text use habitica_update_task'), so it falls short of a 5.

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