Decline an approved RFQ with a structured reason so the buyer and network can route more accurately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| match_id | Yes | ||
| reason_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| declined_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about the 'approved' state prerequisite and the routing outcome, but it does not disclose side effects such as finality, notifications, or whether a decline can be undone.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too thin for a tool with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions. It fails to explain the match_id identifier, the reason_code choices, or the required format of the reason, leaving the agent without enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly.
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 for explaining the three required parameters. It only mentions a 'structured reason,' which hints at reason_code and reason, but it does not explain match_id, the meaning of the reason_code enum values, or the expected content of the reason text.
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 uses a specific verb ('Decline') with a clear resource ('an approved RFQ') and a qualifier ('with a structured reason'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_supplier_quote, revise_supplier_quote, and ask_rfq_clarification.
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 clear context: this tool is for declining an approved RFQ, and the stated purpose ('so the buyer and network can route more accurately') implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.
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.