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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that empty start date 'clears' the value, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what happens when multiple task identifiers are provided, whether the operation requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or what happens to dependent tasks. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns). However, the first line 'Set task start date.' is redundant with the tool name. The Args section is necessary given poor schema coverage, but the structure could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides basic parameter documentation and mentions the return format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it lacks important context about task identification strategy, error conditions, and behavioral implications that would help an agent use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'start' accepts natural language and empty values clear the date, and identifies the four task identification parameters. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or precedence rules.

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 ('Set') and resource ('task start date'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'set_task_due_date' by focusing specifically on start dates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other date-related tools beyond the name.

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 like 'set_task_due_date' or 'postpone_task'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for setting start dates versus due dates. The only implicit guidance is the parameter structure itself.

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