Todoist 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently delete,' which implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but lacks details on permissions required, confirmation steps, error handling, or what happens to dependent data beyond tasks. This is insufficient for a high-risk mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 the tool's high complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like success/error responses, side effects on related entities, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a project and all its tasks'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_label, delete_section, and delete_task by specifying it targets projects and their associated tasks.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if tasks are locked), or suggest alternatives like archiving instead of deletion, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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