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 action ('move') but doesn't describe what happens during the move: whether it preserves task metadata, how it handles conflicts, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 ('move a task') followed by the three destination options. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation lacks sufficient guidance.

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 all four parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters correspond to the three move options mentioned. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that projectId, sectionId, and parentId are mutually exclusive options) or provide additional semantic context.

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 'move' and resource 'task', specifying three possible destinations: different project, different section, or as a subtask. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_task' or 'update_task' by focusing on relocation rather than creation or modification of task content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_section' (which moves sections, not 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), constraints (e.g., cannot move to archived projects), or relationships with sibling tools like 'update_task' (which might also handle task properties). There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool recommendations.

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