Todoist MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to fields not mentioned (e.g., partial vs. full updates), or error conditions. It mentions fields but lacks behavioral context like rate limits or side effects.

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. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying it's a partial update). For a tool with 10 parameters, it's appropriately concise given the rich schema documentation.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility), output format, error handling, or usage guidelines. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to compensate for missing context on how the tool behaves in practice.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., taskId as 'The task ID to update', priority with min/max values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example fields (content, due date, priority, labels) but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., dueString vs. dueDate vs. dueDatetime) 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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), and lists specific fields that can be modified (content, due date, priority, labels, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' by specifying it updates existing tasks, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_label' or 'update_project'.

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 a valid taskId), when to choose this over other task operations like 'complete_task' or 'move_task', or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter schema alone.

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