Todoist MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete a comment' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, is irreversible, has side effects (e.g., affecting associated tasks), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise ('Delete a comment') - just three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb and resource.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, error conditions, or response format. While concise, it lacks the contextual information needed for safe and effective use, especially given the tool's potentially destructive 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 adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100% (the comment_id parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_update_comment or todoist_get_comment by specifying deletion rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the Todoist context beyond the tool name, which slightly reduces specificity.

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., needing an existing comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like todoist_delete_task or todoist_update_comment. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated in the description text.

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