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 fails completely. It doesn't indicate that this is a write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The single verb 'Create' implies mutation but offers no behavioral details.

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 with a single three-word phrase. While this represents severe under-specification, it's not wordy or poorly structured—it's simply incomplete. Every word earns its place, but there aren't enough words to be helpful.

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 (13 parameters, 1 required), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (38%), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address any of the contextual needs for a creation tool with numerous configuration options in a system with many sibling tools.

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 only 38% (5 of 13 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what any parameters mean, their relationships, or provide examples (e.g., what merge tags are, what email_type values are valid). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 an email template' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools (e.g., createCategory, createForm) beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what constitutes an email template in this system.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when to choose this over updateEmailTemplate, or any context about email template management in relation to other tools like getEmailTemplate or listEmailTemplates.

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