Habitica MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update task' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. It doesn't indicate whether updates are partial or complete, if changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Update task' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too minimal to be helpful, failing to convey essential information that would justify its existence. A single word doesn't constitute appropriate structure or front-loading of key details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields are modifiable, what the tool returns, or how it differs from other task-related tools. Given the complexity of task management in this context and the lack of structured metadata, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters clearly documented in the input schema (taskId, text, notes, completed). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates for gaps nor enhances understanding. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what aspects of a task can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_checklist_item' or 'score_task'. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description fails to elaborate on the resource or scope beyond the minimal name restatement.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), compare it to related tools like 'create_task' or 'delete_task', or indicate appropriate contexts. With multiple sibling tools for task management, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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