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. It states the action ('Attach') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling (e.g., invalid dealId), or what happens on success (e.g., returns attachment ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after attachment (success response, error cases), doesn't clarify the relationship between uri/fileName/fileSize parameters, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 (dealId, uri, fileName, fileSize) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these are needed for file attachment. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or constraints.

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 action ('Attach') and resource ('a file to a deal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createPersonAttachment' or 'updateDealAttachment', which would require mentioning this is specifically for creating new attachments rather than updating existing ones or attaching to other entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateDealAttachment' or 'createPersonAttachment'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing deal), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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