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 vaguely hints at 'various options' but fails to specify that this is a destructive operation (implied by parameters like 'confirmation_code'), lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, or what 'reset' entails (e.g., data deletion vs. restoration). The description does not compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving key behavioral traits unclear.

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 single sentence 'Reset or manage user data with various options' is overly brief and under-specified, not concise. It fails to front-load critical information (e.g., destructive nature) and wastes space on vague phrasing ('various options') that adds no value. A more structured approach with clear intent and warnings would improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 (destructive operations, 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address the tool's impact (e.g., data loss), success/failure responses, or error conditions. For a high-stakes tool like data reset, the description should provide more context to guide safe and effective use, which it currently fails to do.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (e.g., 'reset_type' enum values, 'backup_before_reset' default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'data_categories' only applies to 'partial-data') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Reset or manage user data with various options' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'ticktick_reset_user_data' without specifying what 'reset' or 'manage' entails. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'delete user tasks' or 'restore default settings') and does not distinguish this destructive operation from sibling tools like data export or update functions, which are non-destructive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user confirmation), exclusions (e.g., irreversible actions), or related tools (e.g., 'ticktick_export_analytics_data' for backup). This omission is critical for a tool with destructive potential, leaving the agent without context for safe invocation.

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