Replace the structured requirement set on an unlocked project revision. Confirmed flags distinguish buyer-confirmed facts from agent interpretation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| requirements | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Replace' which implies overwriting and thus destruction of the old requirement set, but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add the 'unlocked' precondition and explains the confirmed flag, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, 20 words. It front-loads the main purpose and adds one clarifying detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 complex update operation with a nested requirements array and no safety annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the return value, error conditions, validation behavior, or permission requirements. It only gives the 'unlocked' prerequisite and a meaning for one field. The output schema exists but is not provided, so the description must carry more weight.
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%. The description only clarifies the meaning of the 'confirmed' flag within the requirements array, but does not explain project_id or other requirement fields. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 (Replace), the resource (structured requirement set), and a key condition (on an unlocked project revision). This is specific and distinguishes it from other project tools like get_project or validate_project.
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 gives a clear prerequisite by stating the operation targets an unlocked project revision. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, 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.