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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and provides a warning about the permanence of deletion versus archiving. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to related data when a subscription is deleted.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides crucial guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information about the tool's use and alternatives.

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 clearly indicating the destructive nature and providing the critical warning about alternatives. However, it doesn't specify what the tool returns or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The completeness is good but not perfect 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single 'subscriptionId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the description's warning about deletion versus archiving adds meaningful context that elevates the score.

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') and resource ('a subscription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_subscription_status' or 'get_subscription'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it warns to prefer changing status to archived (using 'update_subscription_status') instead of deleting when ending a subscription without removing it from records. This gives clear context for when to use and when not to use this tool.

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