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 of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a deal' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical lack of transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal content provides essentially no value beyond what's already in the tool name.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'deal' is in this context, what the creation process entails, what happens after creation, or what information might be returned. The description fails to provide the contextual information necessary for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a complex system with many sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 8 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional information about parameters, not even mentioning that parameters exist or what they control. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does all the work, and the description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 a deal' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resources are involved or what 'creating a deal' entails operationally. While it includes a verb ('Create'), it lacks specificity about what a 'deal' represents in this system or how it differs from similar creation tools like 'createPerson' or 'createTask'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling creation tools (createPerson, createTask, createPipeline, etc.), but the description offers no context about what distinguishes deal creation from other entity creations, nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios for using this specific tool.

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