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 warns about cascading deletion ('also deletes associated rate plans and related data'), which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, error conditions, or whether deletion is reversible.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides the HTTP method and endpoint for clarity, and the third delivers a crucial warning—all without any wasted words.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the cascading deletion risk but lacks details on permissions, confirmation, or response format. Given the high stakes of deletion, more context would be beneficial, but the warning elevates it above a bare minimum.

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 'productId' parameter clearly documented as 'Product ID (required)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a product'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_product_rate_plan' or 'delete_subscription' by focusing on products, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare it to similar deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_product_rate_plan'), leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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