habit_checkin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that it marks a habit as done, describes parameter semantics (e.g., value for Real habits, status defaults), and mentions auth category ([Auth: V2]). It does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits, but the behavior is straightforward.

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 very concise: one clear purpose sentence, then meta info and args. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like args without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers all parameters adequately. It does not describe the return value, but for a check-in tool this is likely acceptable. The related tools list adds context. Minor gap for completeness.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter: habit_id, checkin_stamp (date format YYYYMMDD), value (omit for Boolean, provide number for Real), status (values 0/2 with default), and checkin_time (optional ISO datetime). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it records a habit check-in (mark as done for a specific day). The verb 'Record' and resource 'habit check-in' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_habit_records or create_habit by its action.

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 lists related tools and explains parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_habit_records or create_habit. It provides context but lacks direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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