followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create an appointment' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is critically inadequate for a creation 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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to front-load essential information and doesn't earn its place with meaningful content—it's too brief to be helpful.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage—leaving the agent to guess about critical aspects of tool invocation.

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 9 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, not even mentioning that parameters exist. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema.

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 'Create an appointment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling appointment-related tools like 'createAppointmentOutcome' or 'createAppointmentType', nor does it clarify what kind of appointment is being created or in what context.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other creation tools and appointment-related operations), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from similar tools like 'createEvent' or 'createTask'.

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