Rebillia MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the critical constraint about settlement timing and the alternative action, which are essential behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the transaction after voiding (e.g., status changes, reversals).

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description does a good job of covering the most critical context: the settlement timing constraint and alternative tool. However, it lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, updated transaction object) and other behavioral aspects like error handling, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool with no structured output documentation.

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%, with the parameter 'transactionId' fully documented in the schema (including the same settlement timing note as in the description). The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.

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 ('Void') and resource ('a transaction'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'refund_transaction' by explicitly mentioning the alternative, which helps differentiate it within the payment/transaction management context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only works before settlement') and when to use an alternative ('after settlement use refund_transaction instead'). This directly addresses the key decision point for choosing between void and refund operations, offering clear context for usage.

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