ticktick_delete_habit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that deletion includes 'all check-in history' (clarifying scope) and mentions authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which aren't covered by annotations. This enhances the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by two critical warnings/requirements, each on separate lines. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy.

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 (destructive deletion with one parameter), annotations cover safety (destructive, idempotent), and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the scope of deletion and authentication needs. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning idempotency or linking to sibling tools for alternatives.

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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'Delete a habit.' The schema itself documents the 'habit_id' parameter adequately. Since the parameter count is low (1) and the schema handles it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a habit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'ticktick_delete_project' or 'ticktick_delete_task' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 some implied guidance through warnings and requirements ('Warning: This will delete all check-in history for this habit. Requires v2 API authentication.'), suggesting when to be cautious. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use ticktick_archive_project for reversible deletion') or clear when-not-to-use scenarios compared to siblings.

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