RTM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive behavior) and mentions a transaction ID for undo capability, which adds valuable context about reversibility. However, it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent without undo, rate limits, or what happens to associated data like notes or tags.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured parameter and return information. While efficient, the 'Args' section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate list.

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 destructive operation with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and return value (with output schema handling details), but lacks crucial context about parameter relationships, deletion consequences, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema helps, but behavioral and parameter gaps remain significant.

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. It lists the 4 parameters but provides no semantic explanation of what they mean, how they relate, or which combinations are valid. The agent knows parameter names but not whether to provide task_name OR task_id, whether taskseries_id is required with list_id, etc. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 'Delete a task' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'complete_task', 'move_task', or 'undo' which have different purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_list' or 'delete_note' beyond the resource type.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate versus archiving or completing tasks, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'undo' (which can reverse deletions). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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