Habitica MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Delete task' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related checklist items), or provides any confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical safety gap.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this description represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content fails to provide necessary information. The structure is front-loaded by default due to extreme brevity, but this doesn't compensate for the lack of substantive content.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 15 sibling tools including similar operations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it relates to other task management tools. The agent lacks essential context for safe and appropriate use.

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 100% with a single parameter 'taskId' documented as 'Task ID'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description, which applies here.

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 'Delete task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('task'), but fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'delete_checklist_item' or provide any additional purpose information. This minimal description offers no differentiation or clarification beyond the obvious.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete completed tasks), or relationships to sibling tools like 'delete_checklist_item' or 'update_task'. The agent receives zero contextual direction for tool selection.

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