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. It discloses that this is a partial update (PUT operation) and that omitted fields are preserved, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential details (HTTP method and partial update behavior) in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the partial update behavior but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return values. With 14 parameters and complex update logic, more context would be beneficial, though the schema helps compensate.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning partial update behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 the action ('Update an address book entry') and resource ('partial update'), distinguishing it from create/delete operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_customer' or 'update_customer_payment_method' among siblings, though the address focus is implied.

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 implies usage for partial updates to addresses, with 'Only explicitly provided fields are modified' suggesting when to use it (for selective changes). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_customer_address' or 'delete_customer_address', and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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