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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a task' implies a destructive mutation, but it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words—just three words that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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 incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, errors), usage context, or return values. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for safe and correct invocation is lacking, especially given the tool's potential impact.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (parameter 'id' is documented as 'Task ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying deletion requires a task identifier. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 task' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (task), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., deleteAppointment, deletePerson), which would require more specificity about what makes task deletion unique.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible), or when to choose deleteTask over other deletion tools like deleteDeal or deleteNote. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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