TickTick MCP Server

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. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to existing goals, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful operation. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for proper tool invocation remains incomplete.

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 all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'daily or weekly' which aligns with the 'goal_type' parameter's description, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Set') and resource ('daily or weekly focus time goals'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_set_habit_goal' or 'ticktick_set_task_estimate', but the focus on 'focus time goals' provides reasonable distinction within the context of the toolset.

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 like 'ticktick_set_habit_goal' or other goal-setting tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for appropriate tool selection.

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