TickTick 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. It states 'Create' implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., project ID, success status), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new project in TickTick'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_project_folder' or 'ticktick_create_project_from_template' by focusing on basic project creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'ticktick_duplicate_project', which might also create projects in some contexts.

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 when to choose this over 'ticktick_create_project_from_template' or 'ticktick_duplicate_project', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or project limits. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.

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