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. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and lists valid status values, but doesn't explain what each status means, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated resources. 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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the core purpose, followed by implementation details. However, the HTTP method and endpoint information (PUT /product-rateplans/{ratePlanId}/status) is unnecessary for an AI agent's understanding of when to use the tool.

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 the consequences of different status values, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of status transitions in billing systems, more context about behavioral implications 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 fully documents both parameters (ratePlanId and status with valid values). The description repeats the status valid values but adds no additional semantic context 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 action ('Update a rate plan status') and resource ('rate plan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_product_status' or 'update_product_rate_plan', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 like 'update_product_status' or 'update_product_rate_plan'. It mentions the HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint, but this is implementation detail rather than usage context for an AI agent.

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