followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. 'Add a person to an automation' implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, what happens if the person is already in the automation, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. The description lacks critical behavioral context 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 maximally concise—a single six-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, no unnecessary elaboration, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adding' means operationally, what success/failure looks like, or any system constraints. Given the complexity of automations and the existence of similar tools (addPersonToActionPlan, updateAutomationPerson), more context about this specific operation's behavior and boundaries is needed.

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 both parameters clearly documented as 'Person ID' and 'Automation ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain where to find these IDs, format requirements, or relationships between them. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Add a person to an automation' clearly states the action (add) and target resources (person, automation), but it's vague about what this operation actually does. It doesn't specify whether this enrolls a person in an automation workflow, triggers automation execution, or modifies automation membership. The description distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'createPerson' or 'getAutomation' but not from similar tools like 'addPersonToActionPlan' or 'updateAutomationPerson'.

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., existing person and automation IDs), when this operation is appropriate versus using 'updateAutomationPerson' or 'addPersonToActionPlan', or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameters.

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