todoist_add_task

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 mentions the creation action and return format, but fails to describe critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with a brief purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' headers could be integrated more seamlessly. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context like error cases or dependencies. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more guidance on usage and transparency would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters, including examples for due_date (e.g., 'tomorrow', '2024-01-15'), priority range (1-4 with 4 as highest), and format for labels (list of names). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on project_id format or label constraints.

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 specific action ('Create a new task') and resource ('in Todoist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_complete_task, todoist_update_task, and todoist_get_tasks. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_update_task for modifying existing tasks or todoist_get_tasks for retrieving tasks. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a project must exist before assigning a task to it, or when to use this versus other creation tools like todoist_add_project.

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