followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic operation name. It doesn't indicate whether this is a safe operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 (three words) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core operation, it lacks the additional context that would make it genuinely helpful. The single sentence doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't provide enough substance.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a relationship' means in this system's context, what fields can be modified, what the typical use cases are, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema properties. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any contextual insights about parameter usage.

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 relationship' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a relationship can be updated or what 'update' entails operationally. While it includes the resource ('relationship'), it lacks a specific verb beyond the generic 'update' and doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'createRelationship' or 'deleteRelationship'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific update operation is appropriate.

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