todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that tasks are not deleted but moved to the parent project, the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and the section is removed. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates on the specific consequences, enhancing transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by critical behavioral details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint=true), the description is complete. It explains the key behavioral outcomes (task movement, permanence) and purpose, compensating for the lack of an output schema by clarifying what happens post-deletion.

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 parameter 'section_id' fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('Todoist section'), distinguishing it from siblings like todoist_delete_project or todoist_delete_task. It precisely identifies what is being deleted, avoiding ambiguity.

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 by specifying that tasks are moved to the parent project, suggesting this tool is for removing sections while preserving tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like todoist_update_section or provide exclusions, such as if the section must be empty.

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