followupboss-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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), mentions rate limits ('Rate-limited to stay within FUB's 25 PUTs per 10 seconds'), and describes the return format ('Returns results for each person'). This covers safety and output aspects well, though it could add more on permissions or error handling.

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?

It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by rate limit and return details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 does well by covering purpose, usage context, rate limits, and return behavior. It's nearly complete, but could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or error scenarios, given the complexity of bulk operations.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'ids' or 'updates' further). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update multiple people') and resource ('people'), specifies the scope ('with the same changes'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'updatePerson' by emphasizing bulk operations. It's specific and avoids tautology.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Update multiple people with the same changes'), implying it's for batch updates instead of individual ones. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'updatePerson' or state when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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