ticktick_delete_habit

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. It states the operation is 'permanently' destructive, which is valuable, but doesn't address other critical aspects: whether deletion requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to associated data (like habit history), or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single three-word phrase that communicates the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Delete' specifies the action, 'habit' specifies the resource, and 'permanently' adds crucial behavioral context. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'permanently' entails operationally, doesn't mention error conditions or permissions required, and provides no information about return values or confirmation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is critically lacking for a delete operation.

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 the single parameter 'habit_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which states it's 'ID of the habit to delete'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a habit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'permanently' which adds important context about the operation's nature. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_delete_task' or 'ticktick_delete_tag' beyond the resource type.

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 (e.g., needing the habit ID), when deletion is appropriate versus archiving or pausing, or what happens after deletion. The sibling list includes related tools like 'ticktick_pause_habit' and 'ticktick_update_habit' but no comparison is provided.

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