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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and tasks are moved to project root (side effect). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if the section doesn't exist, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 front-loads the core action ('permanently delete') and includes critical side effect information. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the permanence and task relocation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more context would be beneficial for safe agent invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'sectionId'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 resource ('a section'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'delete_task' by specifying the section resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_section' which might also affect sections.

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 section ID), when not to use it, or compare with siblings like 'delete_project' or 'move_section'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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