Create an immutable, single-currency, multi-supplier purchase plan from selected current quote lines, choosing at most one commercial option per requested line. This records a plan only; it neither approves nor purchases anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expires_at | No | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| quote_item_ids | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_plan | Yes | ||
| idempotent_replay | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the plan is immutable and the action only records a plan without approving or purchasing. This clarifies side effects and boundaries, with no contradiction to annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.
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 output schema, annotations, and schema patterns, the description is largely complete: it covers core intent, constraints, and side-effect boundaries. It lacks explicit guidance on idempotency key usage, but this is not essential for basic invocation.
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 only indirectly explains quote_item_ids ('selected current quote lines'). The semantics of request_id, idempotency_key, and expires_at are not addressed, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and patterns.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('purchase plan'), with clear scope ('from selected current quote lines', 'at most one commercial option per requested line'). It distinguishes this creation action from approval or purchasing actions.
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 clearly states what the tool does not do ('neither approves nor purchases anything'), providing exclusion guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like request_purchase_approval for those follow-up actions.
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.