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. 'Remove attachments' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting task history), or provides confirmation. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 at two words, with no wasted verbiage. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too minimal to be fully helpful. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it efficient but incomplete.

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 complexity (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what happens after deletion (e.g., success response, error handling), whether deletions are reversible, or how it interacts with other tools. For a mutation tool, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 both parameters (task_id and attachment_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 'Remove attachments' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ticktick_delete_task_attachment'. While it indicates the action (remove) and resource (attachments), it doesn't specify that these are task attachments or differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_delete_task_note' or 'ticktick_delete_task' that also delete task-related items. The purpose is vague about scope and specificity.

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., attachments must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., if you want to download instead), or comparisons to siblings like 'ticktick_get_task_attachments' (for viewing) or 'ticktick_upload_task_attachment' (for adding). Usage is entirely implied from the name alone.

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