followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a webhook' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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, direct sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 the tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or effects, and while parameters are documented in the schema, the overall context for safe and correct use is lacking. More detail is needed for a mutation 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Webhook ID', 'Event type', 'Callback URL'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 a webhook' clearly states the action (update) and resource (webhook), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createWebhook' or 'deleteWebhook' beyond the verb. It's functional but minimal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID), compare to 'createWebhook' or 'deleteWebhook', or specify scenarios for updating versus other operations. The description offers no usage context.

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