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. It discloses key behavioral traits: pages are 'publicly accessible immediately when created with a valid seo_type and content_active=1 (default).' It also warns about system-seeded seo_type values that 'should NOT be created via API.' However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides critical behavioral information, and the remaining sentences offer essential usage guidance. While slightly dense, every sentence earns its place by adding value beyond the schema. Minor room for improvement in sentence structure.

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 complex mutation tool with 42 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does well. It covers the core purpose, key behavioral aspects (immediate public accessibility), and critical parameter guidance. However, it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity and mutation nature.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of seo_type beyond the schema: it provides mapping from user requests ('landing page') to specific enum values ('content'), warns about internal-only values, and establishes 'content' as the default for generic pages. This contextual guidance helps the agent select the right parameter value based on user intent.

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: 'Create a new page record' with specific required parameters (seo_type and filename). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on page creation versus other entity types like categories, posts, or users. The verb+resource combination is explicit and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use specific seo_type values: 'If the user asks for a "landing page", "static page", "about page", "contact page", "custom page", or similar, use seo_type="content"' and 'Only choose a different seo_type if the user explicitly asks for a search-results template, password-retrieval page, unsubscribe page, or custom-widget page.' This directly tells the agent how to map user requests to parameter values.

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