Todoist 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. 'Update a comment' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to existing comment attributes not mentioned in parameters, or any rate limits/constraints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Update a comment') without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the update is idempotent. For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully actionable.

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 documents all three parameters (comment_id, content, prefix) with their types, descriptions, and enum values. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the prefix interacts with content or providing examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 a comment' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('comment'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'todoist_update_task' or other update tools, nor does it specify what aspects of a comment can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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 'todoist_create_comment' or 'todoist_delete_comment'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID) or contextual factors that would influence tool selection.

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