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 states 'Update an existing habit' which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify what happens on update (e.g., partial vs. full updates, error handling, or side effects). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or response format.

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: 'Update an existing habit.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (mutation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly beyond basic purpose.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'ID of the habit to update'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Update an existing habit' clearly states the action (update) and resource (habit), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_task' or 'ticktick_update_tag', which follow the same pattern for different resources, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.

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., habit must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'ticktick_create_habit' or 'ticktick_delete_habit', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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