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 a pipeline' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., what happens to associated deals/stages), or error conditions. This is dangerously inadequate 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?

Extremely concise at three words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., getPipeline to obtain ID). This leaves the agent guessing about critical operational details.

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 one parameter (id) clearly documented as 'Pipeline ID'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain where to find the ID or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 pipeline' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (pipeline), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like deleteDeal or deletePerson. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes a pipeline in this context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing pipeline ID from getPipeline or listPipelines first), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. The description offers zero usage context.

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