Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). The HTTP method hint (DELETE) is minimal but doesn't add meaningful context beyond the action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but includes an unnecessary HTTP endpoint detail that doesn't aid tool selection. It could be more streamlined by focusing solely on the functional 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical details like confirmation of deletion, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and impact.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('address book entry'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_customer' or 'delete_customer_address' (which doesn't exist as a sibling), but the specificity is adequate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid customer and address ID, or when deletion is appropriate compared to updates or other operations.

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