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. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, what happens to tasks within the section, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 at just three words - 'Update a section name' - with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making this maximally efficient while still communicating the essential purpose.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the update succeeds or fails, what permissions are required, or how this operation relates to other Todoist entities. The description should provide more context about this being a write operation that modifies existing data in the Todoist system.

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%, with both parameters ('section_id' and 'name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 section name' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('section name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'todoist_update_project' or 'todoist_update_task' - they all update different Todoist entities but follow the same pattern.

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 'todoist_get_section' (for reading) and 'todoist_delete_section' (for removal), there's no indication of when this update operation is appropriate versus creating a new section or using other update tools for different entity types.

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