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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions required parameters, but doesn't describe what happens during the update - whether it overwrites all fields, what validation occurs, if it's idempotent, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise - two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists requirements. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from requirements more clearly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update does beyond changing parameters, what happens on success/failure, or what the response contains. The agent lacks crucial context about this write operation's behavior and 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 fully documents all three parameters. The description lists the required parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'conversionRate' or 'fixedRate' mean in business terms or how they interact.

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 ('Update') and resource ('company currency'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_currency' and 'delete_currency' by specifying it's for updating existing currencies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_product' or 'update_customer' beyond the resource name.

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 (e.g., needing an existing currency), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update operations. The agent must infer usage 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.