todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (mutable, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the 'previously completed' precondition and practical scenarios, but doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and information is front-loaded appropriately for quick comprehension.

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 simple mutation tool with good annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't cover edge cases like invalid IDs, but the core purpose and usage are well-defined given the context.

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%, with the single parameter 'task_id' well-documented in the schema as 'ID of the completed task to reopen'. The description doesn't add further parameter details beyond implying the task must be completed, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('reopen (uncomplete)') and resource ('a previously completed Todoist task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'todoist_complete_task' and 'todoist_update_task'. It precisely defines the operation without 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?

It explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Useful for tasks that were marked done by mistake or need to be revisited.' This directly addresses the primary use case and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like creating new tasks or updating existing ones.

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