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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing fields not mentioned. The HTTP method (PUT) is mentioned but not explained in terms of idempotency or partial updates.

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 a single sentence that states the action and lists key optional parameters. The HTTP endpoint reference adds technical context without being verbose. However, the parameter list could be better organized or summarized rather than a comma-separated enumeration.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, how partial updates work, what the response contains, or error scenarios. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context about the update 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 documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description lists 6 parameters (name, type, description, effectiveStartDate, effectiveEndDate, image) as 'Optional,' which adds some semantic context about which fields can be omitted. However, it doesn't mention the 5 other parameters or explain relationships between parameters like the minimum commitment group.

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 ('rate plan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'update_product_rate_plan_charge' or 'update_product_rate_plan_status', which all modify aspects of rate plans.

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. With multiple rate plan-related update tools in the sibling list (update_product_rate_plan_charge, update_product_rate_plan_status), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for specific update scenarios.

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