nexo_followup_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions marking as completed and appending the result, but does not state prerequisites (e.g., followup exists and is incomplete), reversibility, error conditions, or permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and key behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error behavior, state assumptions, and prerequisites. For an agent to use it safely, 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (id and result) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by stating that the result is appended to a verification field, which provides context for its usage. However, additional details like format or constraints are missing.

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 clearly states the action (mark a followup as completed) and the side effect (appends result to verification field). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_followup_update or nexo_followup_note, though the verb 'complete' is specific enough.

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 such as nexo_followup_update or nexo_followup_delete. The description lacks any context for when it is appropriate to complete a followup.

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