brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Create a form' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.

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 at just two words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action, though this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified. Every word earns its place, but there are too few 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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'form' is in this context, what happens after creation, how to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the description needs to compensate but provides zero parameter information. The description doesn't mention any parameters, their purposes, relationships, or constraints. While the schema documents some basics, the description adds no semantic value beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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 form' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'create' and resource 'form', but doesn't explain what kind of form, for what purpose, or how it differs from sibling tools like createFormField or createPage. This provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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. There are many sibling creation tools (createCategory, createPage, createPost, etc.), but no indication of what distinguishes form creation from other resource types. No prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts are mentioned.

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