Habitica MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutation operation, what permissions might be required, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects might occur. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the result might look like. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, with all 4 parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 'Update checklist item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any meaningful detail. It doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'score_checklist_item' or 'delete_checklist_item' that also operate on checklist items.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from related tools like 'score_checklist_item' or 'update_task' that might handle similar operations.

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