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 stage' implies a mutation operation, but the description reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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. While it's under-specified, it contains no redundant or unnecessary language. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, making it efficiently structured despite its content limitations.

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, what fields beyond 'name' might be mutable, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of an update operation and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about behavior and outcomes.

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 the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 stage' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'stage', but lacks any detail about what aspects of a stage can be updated or the scope of the operation. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'createStage' or other update tools in the 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing stage), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'updatePipeline' or 'createStage'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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