brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation ('Create', 'Define'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. The description adds some context about typical use cases but lacks details on side effects or system behavior.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the tool's niche (post types) and usage constraints. However, it lacks details on what happens after creation (e.g., response format, error conditions) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of behavioral annotations, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'category_name' relates to 'post type' or provide examples beyond the schema's). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Create a data type', 'Define a new content-type template') and resource ('data type', 'content-type template'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for creating post types, unlike other create tools for categories, forms, users, etc.

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 usage guidance: 'Only do this when the user explicitly wants a new post type' and warns that 'most sites come pre-configured with the types they need.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria, helping the agent avoid unnecessary creation.

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