Rebillia MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the destructive nature ('Delete'), warns about cascading effects ('may remove or orphan related data'), and specifies the HTTP method ('DELETE /customers/{customerId}'), giving the agent crucial context about this high-risk operation.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: the core action, the technical endpoint, and the critical warning. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The warning is appropriately placed at the end for emphasis.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by warning about cascading effects and providing the HTTP method. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message or status code), leaving some gaps in operational context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'customerId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by ID' in the first sentence, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about ID format, validation, or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 customer by ID') and identifies the resource ('customer'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_customer_address' or 'delete_subscription' by specifying it targets the main customer entity, not related sub-entities.

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 with the 'WARNING' about cascading delete effects and 'Use with caution', which helps the agent understand when to be careful. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'update_customer' for deactivation instead of deletion) or state when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the cautionary note.

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