todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('full created project object including its assigned ID') and listing all color options, which helps the agent understand what to expect from the operation.

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: purpose statement, color options list, and return value specification. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, and the color list is presented efficiently in a comma-separated format.

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 and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It covers the essential behavioral aspects (what gets created and returned) and parameter guidance (color options). The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidelines versus sibling tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by providing the complete color list (which the schema references) and mentioning the return object, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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 project') and resource ('in Todoist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_update_project or todoist_delete_project. It provides a complete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context through the color list and return value mention, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_update_project for modifications. No explicit guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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