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' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks any explanatory context. While it earns points for zero waste, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, provide usage guidance, or explain return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it effectively and safely.

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 clear descriptions for all four parameters (id, name, type, options). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'type' values are valid or how 'options' are used. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description 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 'Update a custom field' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('custom field'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateDealCustomField' or 'createCustomField', nor does it specify what aspects of a custom field can be updated (name, type, options). This makes it adequate but vague compared to more specific alternatives.

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 custom field ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'createCustomField' for new fields or 'deleteCustomField' for removal. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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