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. It states 'Update a product' which implies mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The HTTP method (PUT) hints at idempotency but isn't explained. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The HTTP method inclusion is slightly technical but not wasteful. It could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter notes), but it's efficient with two sentences that earn their place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters (productId, name, category, etc.). The description adds minimal value by listing optional fields (name, category, description, internalProductId, sku) but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('a product'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_product' and 'delete_product' by specifying it's for updates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_product_rate_plan' 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., product must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new products), or how it differs from similar update tools in the sibling list. The HTTP method (PUT) is noted but doesn't serve as usage guidance.

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