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. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). This is inadequate for a mutation tool 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 a single sentence with zero waste, making it highly concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative, slightly reducing its effectiveness as a standalone guide.

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 incomplete. It lacks critical details like behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is documented as 'Relationship ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or context about valid IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 relationship' states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('relationship'), which provides basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of relationship (e.g., CRM contact link, social connection) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'deletePerson' or 'deleteDeal', making it vague in 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing relationship ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'updateRelationship' or 'createRelationship', leaving usage ambiguous.

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