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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., appointments using this type), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 with just four words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension while covering the basic 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' entails (permanent/soft deletion), authorization requirements, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more guidance is needed.

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% with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Type ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 type' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (appointment type), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like deleteAppointment or deleteAppointmentType, which would require more specificity about what distinguishes appointment types from other deletable 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an appointment type ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over related tools like updateAppointmentType or createAppointmentType for managing appointment types.

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