todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that all tasks within the project are also deleted. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the scope and consequences, though it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits or auth needs.

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 very concise with only two sentences, both of which are essential: the first states the action and irreversibility, and the second reinforces the cascading deletion. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the core warning.

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete by emphasizing permanence and cascading effects. However, it could be more comprehensive by mentioning potential error conditions or confirmation steps, though annotations cover some behavioral aspects.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the project_id parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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 explicitly states the action ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a Todoist project and all its tasks'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_delete_task by specifying it deletes the entire project with all tasks, not just individual tasks or other resources.

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 with warnings about permanent deletion and cascading effects on tasks, which helps determine when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using todoist_update_project to archive instead) or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the warning, so it's not fully explicit.

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