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 communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), specifies the failure condition, and mentions the HTTP method (DELETE). It doesn't cover authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format, but provides solid core behavioral information for a deletion tool.

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 efficient - two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core action, the second provides critical failure conditions. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the essential information first.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the failure condition and HTTP method. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success or providing more context about the gateway resource, but given the simplicity of the operation (single parameter, no nested objects), it's reasonably complete.

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 'gatewayId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the complete schema documentation. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 gateway') and the resource ('gateway'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_currency' or 'delete_customer'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 includes an important constraint ('Fails if gateway is linked to company currencies or customers'), which provides clear context for when the tool will not work. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or compare it to similar deletion tools in the sibling list.

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