nexo_followup_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the append action and the token requirement. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the followup history.

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 with a line break, very concise. The important usage note is immediately highlighted. Every sentence is necessary and efficiently communicates the purpose and a key prerequisite.

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 nature of appending a note and the 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about how the note is incorporated (e.g., appended to a sequential list) and the expected return value (no output schema). It could be more complete by explaining the effect on history.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds critical semantic context for the 'read_token' parameter by specifying it must come from nexo_followup_get. This is valuable beyond the schema's description.

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 'Append a note to followup history' uses a specific verb ('append') and identifies the resource ('followup history'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_followup_create and nexo_followup_update by specifying an append action rather than create or update.

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 states the prerequisite: 'call nexo_followup_get first and pass its READ_TOKEN.' This guides the agent on the required prior step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives for different use cases.

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