followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a pond' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 three words with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for what it attempts to communicate, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. The single phrase is front-loaded with the core action but lacks supporting details.

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 'updating' entails beyond the name parameter, what happens to unspecified pond attributes, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of an update operation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 both parameters (id and name) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param 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 pond' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a pond can be updated or distinguish this tool from other pond-related tools like 'createPond' or 'deletePond' in the sibling list. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks meaningful elaboration about the resource or operation 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pond ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'updatePerson' or 'updateDeal'. With multiple update tools in the sibling list, this absence of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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