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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the HTTP method (PUT), but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, how partial updates work, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and HTTP method, one listing parameters. It's appropriately sized for an update operation with many parameters. However, the parameter list is somewhat dense and could benefit from better formatting or grouping.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. While it covers the basic operation and parameters, it lacks the behavioral context needed for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 11 parameters with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing parameter names and noting required vs. optional status, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters). This meets the baseline 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 'Update an existing customer' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_customer' and 'delete_customer' by specifying it's for existing customers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_customer_address' or 'update_customer_payment_method' 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., customer must exist), when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_customer_address' or 'create_customer'. The only implicit guidance is that it's for updating existing customers, but this is already covered in purpose clarity.

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