TickTick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a tag permanently' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to tasks using the tag (e.g., if they become untagged), error conditions, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and 'permanently' adds necessary gravity without verbosity. 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 the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral nuances (e.g., cascading effects, auth needs), error handling, or return values. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 the single parameter 'tag_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, sourcing tips). According to rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tag'), with the qualifier 'permanently' adding specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_tag' or 'ticktick_remove_tag_from_task' by emphasizing permanent removal rather than modification or detachment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all deletion-related siblings (e.g., 'ticktick_delete_task'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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., tag must exist, no active dependencies), compare to 'ticktick_merge_tags' for consolidation, or warn about irreversible effects. With many sibling tools, the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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