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. While 'merge' implies a read operation that combines data, the description doesn't clarify whether this creates a new record, sends an email, returns merged content, or has side effects. No information about permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the template or person data is provided.

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 - a single sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose: 'merge' (action), 'email template' (resource 1), 'person's data' (resource 2), and 'mail merge' (context). There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't explain what the tool actually produces (merged content? sent email? new record?), what happens to the data, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (templateId and personId). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining what constitutes valid IDs or how to obtain them.

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 clearly states the action ('merge') and resources involved ('email template with a person's data'), and includes the parenthetical term 'mail merge' which provides additional context. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from its sibling 'mergeTextMessageTemplate' which appears to serve a similar function for text messages rather than email.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing existing templates and people), nor does it differentiate from the similar 'mergeTextMessageTemplate' tool. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose statement.

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