Taskwarrior MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral information: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that this adds notes/comments/context, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether annotations are editable, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidance, args/returns sections, and an example. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences plus structured elements. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Add an annotation' then 'add notes'), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 a mutation tool with annotations covering safety (non-destructive, non-readonly), an output schema exists (returns confirmation message), and the description provides adequate parameter context, the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by mentioning sibling relationships more explicitly, but it covers the essential context for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'params' contains 'task_id and annotation text' and provides an example. However, it doesn't fully explain parameter semantics beyond what the example shows, such as format constraints for task_id or annotation length limits mentioned in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial compensation.

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: 'Add an annotation (note) to a task' with the verb 'add' and resource 'task'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'taskwarrior_modify' by focusing specifically on annotations rather than general task updates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this tool to add notes, comments, or additional context to a task.' This suggests when to use it but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'taskwarrior_modify' for other task modifications. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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