brilliant-directories-mcp

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 but offers only the basic action ('Create'). It doesn't mention whether this operation requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical lack of behavioral information.

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 maximally concise at just three words with no wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is properly front-loaded with the core action and doesn't contain unnecessary verbiage. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficiently fulfilled.

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 complexity of a creation operation with 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic action statement without explaining what's being created, why, how parameters relate, what happens after creation, or how this differs from other creation tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 5 required parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only types and enums without any semantic meaning. The description offers no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'user_id', 'click_type', 'click_name', 'click_from', or 'click_url' represent, their relationships, or how they define a 'click record'. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 'Create a click record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'createClick' without adding meaningful specificity. While it includes a verb ('Create') and resource ('click record'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling 'create' tools (like createCategory, createUser, etc.) beyond the resource name. It lacks details about what a 'click record' represents in this system's 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including 'create' operations for different resources and a 'listClicks' tool, the agent receives no information about appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or relationships to other tools. This leaves the agent guessing about when this specific creation operation is needed.

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