ticktick_set_habit_goal

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. 'Set or update habit goal' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing goal settings, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies data with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency 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 maximally concise with just four words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete phrase.

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 provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. While concise and clear about purpose, it lacks important context about behavioral implications, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is just adequate for basic understanding.

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 already fully documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained relationships between parameters like how goal_type affects target_count interpretation.

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 'Set or update habit goal' clearly states the action (set/update) and resource (habit goal), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_habit' or 'ticktick_set_focus_goals', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific habit goal tool versus other habit-related tools.

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. With sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_habit' and 'ticktick_set_focus_goals' available, the agent receives no indication about whether this is the primary way to modify habit goals, if it's for initial setup versus ongoing adjustments, or how it differs from general habit updates.

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