followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting deal records). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 insufficient. It lacks critical context like success/failure behavior, error conditions, or confirmation of deletion. This leaves the agent with incomplete information to handle the tool safely and effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Attachment ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, such as where to find the ID or format 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a deal attachment'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like deleteDeal or deletePersonAttachment, which would require specifying it's specifically for attachments associated with deals.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing attachment ID), consequences, or relationships to sibling tools like getDealAttachment or createDealAttachment.

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