nexo_followup_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only non-empty fields are changed, which is useful. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, return values, idempotency, or side effects of updating different fields, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds critical usage guidance. Every word is necessary, and the important note is front-loaded. No unnecessary content.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error messages, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including format and constraints. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the non-empty behavior and the read_token's source, but it does not clarify how optional parameters interact or provide example values beyond what the schema does.

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 updates fields of an existing followup, using the verb 'update' and resource 'followup'. It differentiates from sibling tools like nexo_followup_create and nexo_followup_delete, but does not explicitly distinguish from nexo_followup_complete or nexo_followup_note, which also modify followups.

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 explicit guidance by stating the prerequisite to call nexo_followup_get and pass its READ_TOKEN. It also notes that only non-empty fields are changed, which informs when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives for related actions.

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