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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated data), or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Custom field ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a custom field' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (custom field), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like deleteDealCustomField or deleteAppointment, leaving ambiguity about scope. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings like deleteDealCustomField and updateCustomField, the description doesn't clarify if this is for general custom fields or specific types, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing.

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