NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'Only non-empty fields are changed' which explains partial update behavior. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, whether changes are reversible, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters, and an output schema exists, the description does an adequate job. It explains the partial update behavior and documents parameters well, but doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters: identifies 'id' as the Followup ID with format example, and explains the optional fields with their purposes. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify allowed status values or date format constraints beyond YYYY-MM-DD.

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 ('Update fields') and resource ('an existing followup'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'nexo_followup_create' or 'nexo_followup_delete', but the focus on updating existing records is reasonably clear from context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_followup_create' or 'nexo_followup_complete'. It mentions 'Only non-empty fields are changed' which is a behavioral detail but doesn't constitute usage guidance about appropriate contexts or prerequisites.

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