Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Unlink' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the external product after unlinking (does it get deleted or just disconnected?). The HTTP method (DELETE) suggests permanent removal, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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 - a single sentence that states the action and includes the HTTP endpoint. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more context given the destructive nature of the operation. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unlink' means operationally, whether data is preserved elsewhere, what the response looks like, or error conditions. Given the complexity of product management systems and the presence of related tools, more context would help agents use this tool appropriately.

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 as required IDs. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, no explanation of what these IDs reference, no relationship between product and external product). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal 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 action ('Unlink') and resource ('external product from a product'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'link_external_product' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between these two operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that an external product must already be linked), consequences of unlinking, or what happens to associated data. With sibling tools like 'delete_product' and 'delete_external_product', context about when unlinking versus deletion is appropriate would be helpful.

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