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. 'Update a call record' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error handling, or what happens if only partial parameters are provided. 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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Update a call record'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases), usage context, or what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description lacks sufficient detail for safe and effective use by 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'id' as 'Call ID', 'duration' as 'Duration'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a call record' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('call record'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like updateAppointment, updatePerson, etc.), nor does it specify what aspects of a call record can be updated. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 call ID), compare it to similar tools like 'createCall' or 'getCall', or indicate scenarios where it's appropriate. Without any usage context, the agent must infer this from the tool name and parameters alone.

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