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. 'Change project display order' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to other projects' orders, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage guidelines, and any details about the expected outcome or error conditions. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to address other critical aspects for a mutation tool.

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 semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100% (the 'project_orders' parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Array of project IDs with their new sort orders'), so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Change project display order' clearly states the action (change) and resource (project display order), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_projects' (read) and 'ticktick_create_project' (create), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project modification tools like 'ticktick_set_project_color'.

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., existing projects), when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools like 'ticktick_move_project_to_folder' or 'ticktick_get_projects' for viewing order. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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