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 'modify' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose but leaves significant gaps: no behavioral context (permissions, side effects), no usage guidance, and no information about return values. The comprehensive schema documentation prevents a lower score, but the description should do more given the mutation nature.

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 mentions 'user preferences and account settings' which aligns with the 'settings' object parameter, but adds no specific details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage that thoroughly documents all 9 nested properties, the description provides minimal additional value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 'Modify user preferences and account settings' clearly states the action (modify) and resource (user preferences/account settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticktick_update_notification_settings or ticktick_update_sync_settings by focusing on general user settings rather than specific notification or sync configurations.

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., authentication requirements), whether it applies to the current user or other users, or how it differs from related settings tools like ticktick_update_notification_settings. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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