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 deal' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of helpful detail. Every word earns its place, even if the place is minimal.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields are modifiable, or what the response might look like. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 all 8 parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the generic 'update' context. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description.

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 deal' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish what aspects of a deal can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like updateDealAttachment or updateDealCustomField. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks meaningful elaboration about the resource or scope.

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 a deal ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like createDeal or deleteDeal. With many sibling tools available, this absence of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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