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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the action is irreversible (destructive) and requires caution, which is essential for a mutation tool. It lacks details on permissions or response format, but the warning is highly valuable.

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 ('Void an invoice'), followed by the HTTP method and endpoint for clarity, and ends with a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, irreversibility, and caution, but could improve by mentioning response behavior or error conditions. It adequately supports safe agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'invoiceId' documented as 'Invoice ID (required)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 specific action ('Void an invoice') and identifies the resource ('invoice'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_invoice' or 'update_invoice'. The verb 'void' is precise and not a tautology of the tool 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 clear context with 'CRITICAL: This action is IRREVERSIBLE. Use with caution,' which strongly implies when to use it (for permanent voiding) and warns against casual use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'delete_invoice' or specify prerequisites, keeping it from a perfect score.

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