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 'update' action. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the update is reversible, potential side effects, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical lack of transparency.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single 'sentence' doesn't provide enough value to justify its existence.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, offers no usage guidance, and fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata. The description leaves critical gaps in understanding how to properly invoke this tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema properties. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what aspects of a task can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like updatePerson or updateDeal. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description fails to provide specific context about the resource being modified.

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, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other update operations in the sibling tool list. The agent receives no contextual cues about application scenarios or constraints.

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