nexo_followup_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions appending but does not explain idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid token, nonexistent followup), or if the operation is reversible. The read_token prerequisite hints at authentication but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first states the core function, second gives a critical prerequisite. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the action. Efficient and to the point.

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 and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the action and a mandatory prerequisite, but omits what the agent can expect as a return value (success/error), behavior on failure, or any side effects. Could be improved with more operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: the read_token is already described as 'Token returned by nexo_followup_get', and the other parameters are not elaborated further. No additional clarity provided.

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 verb 'append' and the resource 'followup history', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like nexo_followup_create (which creates a new followup) or nexo_followup_update (which updates fields), as it specifically adds a note to existing history.

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 an explicit prerequisite: call nexo_followup_get first and pass its READ_TOKEN as a parameter. This gives clear usage context, but lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives for similar actions (e.g., if one wants to replace notes).

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