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 this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid labelId), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 purpose and enumerates the modifiable fields without unnecessary words. Every element serves a purpose: the verb, resource, and specific attributes. There's no redundancy or wasted space.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that might have similar gaps.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description lists the updatable fields (name, color, favorite status, order) which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition over the comprehensive schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing label'), and specifies the fields that can be modified (name, color, favorite status, order). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_label' and 'delete_label' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_project' or 'update_task' beyond the resource type.

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 an existing label ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new labels), or how it differs from similar update operations on other resources. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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