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 minimal context by specifying 'Rename' as the action, which implies a specific type of update, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or response format. It doesn't contradict 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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Rename an existing Todoist section.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple update operation, earning its place by clearly stating the core action.

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 (a mutation with two parameters), annotations provide good coverage, but there's no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't address return values or error handling. It's adequate as a basic descriptor but lacks depth for full agent understanding without additional 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 clear descriptions for both parameters (section_id and name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining name constraints (e.g., character limits) or how to obtain section_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 action ('Rename') and resource ('an existing Todoist section'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like todoist_update_label or todoist_update_project, which follow the same pattern but for different 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid section_id), compare it to other update tools for different resources, or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new sections vs. renaming existing ones).

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