Create or update normalized supplier catalog items through a durable manual import with row-level validation, history, evidence scope, availability, and commercial terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| catalog_import | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description hints at 'row-level validation' and 'durable import' but does not explicitly disclose side effects, partial failure behavior, or system interactions. The annotation idempotentHint=true is already given, and the description does not add any additional behavioral nuance such as rate limits or resource impacts.
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 concise sentence without unnecessary filler. It packs multiple concepts (normalization, durable import, validation, history, evidence, availability, commercial terms) into one line, but remains efficient and does not ramble.
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 tool's moderate complexity with many item fields, the description lacks essential context about expected output, error handling, or edge cases. It does not mention what the function returns (e.g., success counts, IDs) or how failures are reported (e.g., row-level error details). The description is too high-level to fully orient a user for successful 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?
The description provides no explanation of the required parameters (idempotency_key and items) or their purpose. The input schema contains many item properties (e.g., supplier_sku, price_minor, availability_status) but the description mentions only generic terms like 'availability' and 'commercial terms' without mapping them to specific fields. This leaves the parameter meanings largely ambiguous.
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 core action: 'Create or update normalized supplier catalog items'. The verb 'upsert' is implicit in the name, and the description confirms both create and update. It distinguishes the resource type (supplier catalog items) from other tools like upsert_bom, though it does not explicitly contrast with related update tools.
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 mentions 'durable manual import' but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_availability or update_supplier_capabilities). There is no guidance on conditions like bulk operations, data validation needs, or batch scenarios. It leaves the user to infer appropriate use cases.
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.