followupboss-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It fails to add any meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), error conditions, or response format. Given the 5 parameters and lack of structured behavioral data, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'id', 'dealId', 'uri', 'fileName', 'fileSize'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format constraints or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 attachment' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('deal attachment'), but lacks any detail about what aspects can be updated or the scope of the operation. Compared to siblings like 'createDealAttachment' or 'deleteDealAttachment', it doesn't differentiate beyond the basic action.

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 attachment), exclusions, or related tools like 'createDealAttachment' or 'deleteDealAttachment'. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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