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 effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanently delete') and clarifies the impact on related data ('tasks will keep their other labels'), which are crucial behavioral traits for a deletion operation. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action ('permanently delete a label'), followed by important behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by emphasizing permanence and clarifying data relationships. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if the label doesn't exist) or confirmation requirements, given the high-stakes nature of deletion.

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% (the single parameter 'labelId' is documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but it does provide important context about what happens when the label is deleted, which relates to the parameter's purpose.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a label'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'delete_task'. It also adds important context about what happens to associated tasks ('tasks will keep their other labels'), which helps differentiate it from tools that might cascade deletions.

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 implies usage context by specifying the permanent nature of deletion and the effect on tasks, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_label' or 'list_labels'. No explicit guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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