Ask the buyer a clarification question on an approved supplier RFQ without changing the immutable request package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| match_id | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clarification | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating the action does not alter the 'immutable request package,' clarifying the non-destructive nature precisely. It also implies a side effect (sending a question to the buyer) consistent with readOnlyHint=false.
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?
A single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and including only essential qualifiers. No redundant or filler 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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the prerequisite ('approved supplier RFQ') and the non-mutating nature. However, it does not elaborate on the expected flow or response, but the output schema covers return values. Minor gaps remain in fully defining the match_id 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%, and the description does not explain match_id or question beyond their obvious names. It adds no detail about the match_id format (only the schema pattern) or the nature/content of the question, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.
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 (ask a clarification question), the target (buyer), and the subject (approved supplier RFQ), with the scope qualifier 'without changing the immutable request package.' This distinguishes it from mutation tools like revise_supplier_quote and decline_supplier_rfq.
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?
Provides clear context: it is used on an 'approved supplier RFQ' and explicitly says it does not change the package, implying it is for communication rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, which would push it to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.