RTM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool deletes a note and returns a confirmation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible (vs. 'undo' sibling), permission requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'transaction ID' in returns hints at an audit trail, but this is vague.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the tool, and the subsequent lines document parameters and output. However, the parameter list is verbose without added value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 deletion tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools like 'undo', the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context: how parameters interrelate, what happens on deletion (e.g., if it affects task history), or error handling. The output schema exists but isn't described beyond a vague 'confirmation', leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds little beyond listing parameter names. It doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that note_id is required while others are optional for task identification), what 'taskseries_id' means, or how to choose between task_name, task_id, and list_id. The Args/Returns structure is helpful but lacks semantic clarification.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a note from a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'edit_note' or 'delete_task' by specifying it targets notes rather than tasks or lists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_task_notes' for retrieval vs. deletion.

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 note_id from 'get_task_notes'), when to use task_name vs. task_id, or how it differs from 'delete_task' for removing entire tasks. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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