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 explains that Todoist will parse dates, priorities, labels, and projects from the text, which adds useful context about the tool's behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and explaining the parsing behavior without any wasted words.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and parsing behavior but lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, which could be important for an AI agent.

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 'text' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning that the text should be 'natural language' and giving an example, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('add'), resource ('task'), and method ('using natural language'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' by emphasizing the natural language parsing capability, which is a unique feature.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Quickly add a task using natural language'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The natural language focus implies it's for quick entry versus structured creation, but no explicit exclusions are given.

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