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. 'Attach a file to a person' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether attachments are permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 ('Attach a file to a person'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps that could hinder effective 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 four parameters (personId, uri, fileName, fileSize) and their types. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are needed for attachment. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles 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 'Attach a file to a person' clearly states the verb ('attach') and resource ('file to a person'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createPerson' or 'createNote' by specifying file attachment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'createDealAttachment' or 'updatePersonAttachment', which could cause confusion in sibling selection.

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., needing an existing person), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'createDealAttachment' or 'updatePersonAttachment'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose correctly among attachment-related operations.

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