Check In Habit

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only mentions recording a check-in and the date default. It does not disclose what happens if a check-in already exists for that date, whether the habit must already exist, or what the tool returns. The phrase 'by default' is also ambiguous given that the schema marks date as required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and gives the essential date format hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate for missing behavioral and return-value information. It does not mention what a successful check-in returns, how to handle duplicate check-ins, or that value is only for quantitative habits. The schema covers parameters, but the overall description leaves important operational gaps.

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%, so parameter semantics are already provided. The description adds a default-date convention for the date parameter, but this is somewhat inconsistent with the schema requiring date. It does not add meaningful insight for habit_id or value beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Record a check-in') and the resource ('for a habit on a specific date'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ticktick_get_habit_checkins (read vs. write) and ticktick_create_habit (creates a habit, not a check-in). The date format hint also clarifies the expected input format.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ticktick_get_habit_checkins or ticktick_create_habit. The only usage-related hint is 'Use today's date in YYYYMMDD format by default,' which concerns the date parameter, not tool selection.

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