add_followup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the application must already exist, whether the reminder appears in get_pending_followups, side effects on application status, or timezone handling. For a scheduling tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool has only three parameters, the description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., application must exist), date format expectations, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'get_pending_followups' and 'mark_followup_done'. Though an output schema exists, its contents are not available, so the description carries the burden and falls short.

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%, meaning the description provides no information about parameters. The schema itself only gives names and types (e.g., application_id integer, follow_up_date string) without semantic context. The description does not mention that follow_up_date should be in a specific format, whether note is optional, or how application_id relates to existing applications.

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 uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('follow-up reminder tied to an application'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mark_followup_done' (completion vs. creation) and 'get_pending_followups' (listing vs. creation).

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 phrasing 'tied to an application' implies the tool requires an existing application and is meant for scheduling reminders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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