todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it explains how recurring tasks behave (advances to next occurrence), clarifies the semantic difference between 'completing' and 'deleting' tasks, and mentions the tool's purpose as the 'standard way' to check off tasks. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description enhances understanding of the operation's effects.

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 perfectly structured with three focused sentences: the core purpose, behavioral nuance about recurring tasks, and explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the operation's behavior, sibling differentiation, and usage guidance. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single parameter (task_id). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value. The description focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter details.

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 ('Mark a Todoist task as completed'), identifies the resource ('task'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining it's the standard way to check off tasks versus permanent deletion. 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('standard way to check off a task'), when not to use it ('For recurring tasks...advances to the next occurrence rather than permanently removing it'), and names a specific alternative ('Use todoist_delete_task to permanently remove a task instead'). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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