Replace the supplier-submitted capability set while preserving separately sourced public, operator-verified, and transaction-proven evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capabilities | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the operation replaces the supplier-submitted set while preserving separately sourced evidence, which is meaningful side-effect context beyond the all-false annotations. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or reversibility, but the primary mutation scope is clear.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant 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?
Given a complex nested input schema with no field descriptions and no usage alternatives, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid capabilities payload. It does not explain how to represent capabilities or what happens to existing data beyond 'replace'.
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 the 'capabilities' array structure, required fields, or the meaning of nested fields like capability_type, normalized_value, or evidence_excerpt. The phrase 'capability set' only loosely maps to the parameter.
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 the specific verb 'Replace' and names the resource 'supplier-submitted capability set', with a key preservation constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_availability or upsert_supplier_catalog.
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 tool is for replacing supplier-submitted capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparisons or exclusions are provided.
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.