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. It states 'Update' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to other message attributes. For a mutation tool 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing context about the mutation's effects and results.

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 both parameters ('messageId' and 'message') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of messageId, constraints on message content). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an inbox app message' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('inbox app message'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specifically gets updated (just 'message' content vs. other attributes) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'updateTextMessage' or 'updateNote' that might also update message-like content.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing message ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'inboxAppAddMessage' (for creating) or 'updateTextMessage' (for different message types). The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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