todoist-v1-mcp-server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying 'Only include fields to change,' which clarifies partial update behavior, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing Todoist project') and adds a crucial constraint ('Only include fields to change') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 moderate complexity (update operation with 5 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks output schema information, but the description's focus on input behavior is adequate for the context provided by structured fields.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying partial updates ('Only include fields to change'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Todoist project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from creation tools like 'todoist_create_project' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'todoist_update_task' or 'todoist_update_label'.

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 implicit guidance with 'Only include fields to change,' suggesting partial updates are supported. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_update_task' or 'todoist_update_label,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond what's implied.

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