Todoist 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 states the tool creates a section but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns the new section ID), or any side effects (e.g., if it affects project structure). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information ('Create a new section within a project'). Every word earns its place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the new section object or ID), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully documents both parameters (projectId and name) with clear descriptions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new section within a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_task' by specifying the section context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from 'move_section' or 'update_section' beyond the creation aspect.

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 an existing project), when not to use it (e.g., for updating instead of creating), or how it relates to siblings like 'list_sections' or 'delete_section'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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