nexo_followup_complete

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. It reveals that the result parameter is appended (not overwritten) to a verification field, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens if the followup is already completed.

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 with two short sentences, no unnecessary words, and each sentence conveys essential information. The action is front-loaded, and the side effect is clearly stated.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and a key behavioral detail. However, it lacks context about the state changes (e.g., what happens to the followup after completion, revertibility via restore sibling) and any prerequisites. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and result). The description adds value by explaining that the result is appended to a 'verification field,' providing context beyond the schema's 'What was found/done (optional).' This clarifies the parameter's effect.

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 tool's action: 'Mark a followup as completed.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, note, restore, and update. The additional detail about appending result to the verification field further clarifies the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_followup_update or nexo_followup_note. The description does not indicate prerequisites, such as whether the followup must be in a certain state before completion, or when it is appropriate to append a result.

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