followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or provides confirmation. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. While under-informative, it's structurally efficient and earns its place by stating the basic operation.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format. Given the complexity of deletion operations and the rich sibling toolset, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Outcome ID'), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema fully documents the single required parameter.

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 'Delete an appointment outcome' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It provides the verb 'delete' and resource 'appointment outcome', but lacks specificity about what an appointment outcome is or the scope of deletion. It doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like deleteAppointment or deleteAppointmentType.

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 appointment outcome ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like deleteAppointment. With many sibling tools present, this absence of context is problematic.

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