ticktick_create_habit

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which the description aligns with by implying creation. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which is crucial for usage. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 extremely concise with three brief sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second outlines key features, and the third specifies authentication requirements.

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 (creation with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and authentication but lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, or behavioral nuances. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides high-level parameter context by mentioning 'daily goals, reminders, and custom icons/colors', which maps to parameters like goal, reminder_time, color, and icon. However, it doesn't detail specific semantics, constraints, or formats for these parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Create a new habit') and the resource ('habit to track'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_update_habit' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'ticktick_create_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?

The description implies usage for habit creation with daily goals and reminders, and mentions authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ticktick_create_task' for tasks or 'ticktick_update_habit' for modifications, and doesn't specify prerequisites beyond authentication.

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