nexo_followup_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a write operation by 'append' but omits details on side effects, reversibility, or permissions. The token requirement is helpful, but overall transparency is adequate yet incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences deliver purpose and critical prerequisite with zero waste. Every word serves a functional role.

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 simple tool complexity and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage flow (prerequisite, required params). It could mention expected return value (e.g., success status) for full completeness, but the core context is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the origin of read_token (from nexo_followup_get) and noting the actor default, clarifying parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 ('Append a note to followup history') with a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools like nexo_followup_create, nexo_followup_update, and nexo_followup_delete, this tool is uniquely positioned for history note appending, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call nexo_followup_get first and pass its READ_TOKEN, establishing a prerequisite. While it does not enumerate when not to use the tool, the guidance is concrete and actionable, earning a 4.

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