todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the return value ('Returns the created label's ID and name') and practical usage guidance about label name vs ID. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate label names.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return value information and practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The two sentences are precisely what's needed for this tool.

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 creation tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) but no output schema, the description provides adequate context by specifying the return values. It could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions or constraints (like duplicate label names), but it covers the essential information needed to use the tool effectively.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 personal label') and resource ('in Todoist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_update_label or todoist_delete_label. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by mentioning that the created label's name (not ID) should be used when assigning labels to tasks with todoist_create_task or todoist_update_task. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like todoist_update_label for modifying existing labels.

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