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. It correctly identifies this as a destructive DELETE operation and specifies a failure condition, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like permission requirements, whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides a critical constraint. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (the failure condition) is included upfront.

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 provides the essential minimum: what it does and a key failure condition. However, it lacks information about what happens on success (confirmation? deleted object data?), error responses, or other behavioral constraints that would be important for a deletion tool.

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 schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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'), the resource ('a charge or credit for a customer'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_customer_charge_credit' and 'list_customer_charges_credits'. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying what type of record is being deleted.

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 about when NOT to use the tool ('Fails if the charge/credit has invoice details assigned'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like voiding or modifying charges/credits instead of deleting, or when deletion is preferred over other operations.

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