followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Update a pipeline' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing pipeline data, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected response format might be. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, it achieves perfect conciseness within its limited scope.

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 woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails beyond changing the name, doesn't mention error conditions or constraints, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects despite having two required parameters documented in the schema.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'name') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details 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 pipeline' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what aspects of a pipeline are updated or how this differs from other pipeline-related tools like 'createPipeline' or 'deletePipeline' in the sibling list. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks meaningful differentiation from related operations.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from sibling tools like 'createPipeline' or 'deletePipeline'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema without any descriptive assistance.

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