Rebillia MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying that it performs a deletion operation (implying mutation) and details the failure condition ('Fails if currency is in use'), including specific examples like invoices and subscriptions. This adds valuable context beyond basic function, though it could mention permissions or irreversible effects for a higher score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage constraints, and failure conditions, but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling. For a destructive tool, this is adequate but could be more comprehensive to achieve a perfect score.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'companyCurrencyId' documented as 'Company currency ID (required)'. The description does not add any additional semantic information about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format or sourcing details. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete a company currency') and resource ('company currency'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_currency', 'update_currency', and 'list_currencies'. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being tautological.

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 for when to use this tool by stating it 'Fails if currency is in use', which implicitly guides usage to when the currency is not in use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_currency' or 'set_default_currency' for related actions, nor does it specify when not to use it beyond the failure condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.