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. 'Deactivate' implies a state change but doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects existing data, or what the expected outcome is. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), this level of conciseness is appropriate and effective.

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 tool that performs a state-changing operation ('deactivate') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what deactivation means, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to existing inbox app data. Given the complexity implied by 'deactivate' and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the action rather than inputs.

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 'Deactivate the inbox app' clearly states the action (deactivate) and target (inbox app), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'inboxAppInstall' or 'inboxAppUpdateConversation' - it's unclear what 'deactivate' means versus 'delete' or 'uninstall' operations that might exist elsewhere.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'inboxAppInstall', 'listInboxAppInstallations', and various inbox app management tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, when deactivation is appropriate versus deletion, or what state the system should be in before calling this tool.

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