Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'POST /products/{productId}/external-products' which implies a write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether this is reversible, what happens if linking fails, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences that cover the basic operation and required parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence could be more structured, and there's some redundancy with the schema information that doesn't add value.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after linking, what the response contains, error conditions, or how this affects related entities. The description should provide more context about the operation's impact and expected outcomes.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'Required: companyIntegrationId, productId (external), settings with modifierDisplayName' which partially restates what's in the schema but adds minimal value. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Link') and resources ('external product to a product'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'unlink_external_product' tool, which would require mentioning the opposite operation or contrasting use cases.

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 the sibling 'unlink_external_product' tool for removal operations, nor does it explain prerequisites like needing an existing product or integration. There's no context about when this linking is appropriate versus other product management tools.

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