Create a human review link bound to the exact purchase-plan version, suppliers, maximum amount, currency, risks, and expiry. This does not approve or purchase the plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_plan_id | Yes | ||
| expires_in_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approval | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it's a side-effecting action. The description adds valuable context by specifying what the link is bound to (plan version, suppliers, etc.) and clarifying that it does not perform final approval or purchase. This extra boundary information goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover prerequisites or response behavior.
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 two sentences, succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope; the second eliminates ambiguity about side effects. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
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 tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the action, the object, binding details, and explicitly states non-actions. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites (e.g., verifying the plan exists) and how to retrieve/use the generated link, but these are not critical given the schema and sibling tools.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. It neither explains purchase_plan_id nor expires_in_minutes beyond what the schema shows (types, defaults, min/max). The mention of 'expiry' hints at the expiration parameter but does not directly describe it. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('human review link'), and clearly defines the scope ('bound to the exact purchase-plan version, suppliers, maximum amount, currency, risks, and expiry'). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating what it does not do ('does not approve or purchase the plan'), which sets it apart from related tools like create_purchase_plan.
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 implies the use case: requesting human approval for a purchase plan. It includes an explicit exclusion ('does not approve or purchase the plan') which clarifies when not to use it as a final action. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use this when' statements, so it falls short of a 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.