ticktick_update_habit

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about v2 API authentication, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like what happens with partial updates, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by authentication details. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) slightly limits readability.

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 (mutation with multiple optional fields), annotations cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent), and an output schema exists, reducing the need for return value details. However, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite structured data support.

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%, with 1 parameter (a nested object 'params' containing multiple fields like 'habit_id', 'name', etc.). The description mentions 'properties' generically but doesn't explain specific parameters (e.g., 'habit_id' is required, others are optional with null defaults). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving semantics unclear.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing habit's properties'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_habit' or 'ticktick_delete_habit', which would require mentioning creation or deletion specifically.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions authentication requirements but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, such as distinguishing from 'ticktick_create_habit' for new habits or 'ticktick_get_habit' for retrieval. Without this, the agent lacks clear context for tool selection.

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