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 whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action verb.

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 just three words. While severely under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text - though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of being informative.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 22% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a membership plan is, what happens after creation, how it integrates with the system, or provide any context about the complex parameter set. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured 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 only 22%, meaning most parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any of the 9 parameters, their purposes, or relationships between them. While the schema has some parameter descriptions (like for subscription_type and search_priority), the description adds zero value to help understand what data is needed to create a membership plan.

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 membership plan' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what a membership plan entails, what resource it creates, or how it differs from other creation tools like createUser or createService. While the verb 'Create' is clear, the object 'membership plan' lacks meaningful context about what this resource represents in the 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when membership plans should be created, or how this relates to sibling tools like getMembershipPlan, updateMembershipPlan, or deleteMembershipPlan. There's no indication of appropriate contexts or constraints for using this creation tool.

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