todoist_add_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it 'Creates a new project' and returns a 'confirmation message with the created project ID,' but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context like error cases or usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' is the project name, 'color' is optional with examples (e.g., 'red', '#ff9900'), and 'parent_id' is for nested projects. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format constraints for 'parent_id'.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new project in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_update_project' or 'todoist_get_project', which would require a more specific statement about when to create versus update or retrieve.

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), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or refer to sibling tools like 'todoist_update_project' for modifications or 'todoist_get_projects' for listing.

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