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 mentions the HTTP method (PUT) and that parameters are optional, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting connected systems), or error conditions. 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Update a company gateway'). The additional details about the HTTP method and optional parameters are relevant and efficiently stated. However, the inclusion of the exact endpoint ('PUT /gateways/{gatewayId}') might be slightly redundant if the agent already has API context.

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 happens on success (e.g., returns the updated gateway object) or failure, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like idempotency or rate limits. Given the complexity of updating a gateway (which may involve credentials), more context is needed.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'displayName' and 'setting' are optional and that 'setting' is a 'credentials key-value object', but this mostly repeats schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gateway'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_gateway' and 'delete_gateway' by specifying it's an update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_customer', 'update_product'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 gateway), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'update_customer' or 'test_gateway'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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