todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already 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 task object including its assigned ID') and clarifying natural language date handling and priority defaults, which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations.

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: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by focused paragraphs explaining key parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for a 10-parameter 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 no output schema, the description provides good coverage of key behavioral aspects (return format, natural language date handling, priority mapping). It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error conditions, but given the annotations and schema coverage, it's mostly adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context for due_string (natural language examples), priority (mapping of values to labels), and clarifies the return value, providing value beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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_update_task or todoist_delete_task. It's not a tautology and provides clear differentiation.

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 parameter explanations (e.g., due_string supports natural language, priority defaults), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_update_task or todoist_complete_task. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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