ticktick_update_focus_settings

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description specifies authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication') which isn't covered by annotations. This helps the agent understand access prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 just three short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing customizable elements, and specifying authentication requirements. There's zero wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 this is a mutation tool with rich annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides reasonable completeness. It covers the core purpose, key parameters at a high level, and critical authentication requirements. However, it could benefit from more detail about what 'automation preferences' specifically means and how partial updates work with null parameters.

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 schema has no top-level description, only parameter-level descriptions), the description carries more burden. It mentions 'Customize work duration, breaks, and automation preferences' which maps to the parameters (pomo_duration, short_break, long_break, auto_start_break, auto_start_pomo) but doesn't cover all parameters (missing long_break_interval, daily_pomo_target). The description adds some semantic context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose with 'Update Pomodoro/focus settings' and specifies the resource being modified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_focus_settings' by indicating this is an update operation rather than a read. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (like update_task or update_project) beyond the focus settings scope.

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 usage context with 'Requires v2 API authentication' which is helpful for prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (like whether to use this versus configuring focus through other means) or provide clear exclusion criteria. The authentication requirement is useful but insufficient for full usage guidance.

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