followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a stage' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, requires confirmation, has side effects (e.g., affecting associated deals or pipelines), or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation 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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the action and resource, albeit minimally.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like irreversible effects, permissions, error conditions, or what 'stage' refers to in the system. For a deletion tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single required 'id' parameter. The schema description 'Stage ID' is minimal but sufficient. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 stage' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a 'stage' is in this context (e.g., a pipeline stage, workflow stage) or what deletion entails, though it does include the verb 'delete' which provides basic action 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. While sibling tools include 'deleteStage' and 'updateStage', the description doesn't clarify whether deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or should be used instead of updating or archiving. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without decision-making criteria.

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