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 nothing beyond the basic creation action. It doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output might be. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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 two words. While severely under-specified, it contains no wasted words or redundant phrasing. Every element (both words) serves the core purpose of identifying the tool's action, though this comes at the expense of completeness.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the parameters mean, what behavioral characteristics to expect, or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with almost no usable information beyond the tool name.

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 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (7 strings, 1 integer enum), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'menu_name' vs 'menu_title' represent, what 'menu_location' refers to, what the CSS/HTML parameters do, or what the active flag controls. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 menu' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what type of menu (navigation, dropdown, etc.) or in what system context, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like createCategory or createWidget. 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 no indications of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to related tools like createMenuItem or updateMenu. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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