followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits/constraints. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 fields can be updated, what the response looks like, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity of updating a template (which could affect email campaigns), more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (id, name, subject, body) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an email template' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('email template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createTemplate' (creation) and 'deleteTemplate' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'updateTextMessageTemplate'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update operations like 'updateTextMessageTemplate' for text message templates.

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