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 only states the action ('Create') without details on permissions, side effects, or response format. It doesn't mention that this is a mutation tool, potential rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure, which is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, low schema coverage (17%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 low at 17%, with only 'data_type' documented. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain critical parameters like 'user_id', 'data_id', 'group_name', 'group_desc', or 'group_status'. This leaves most parameters semantically unclear, not compensating for the schema gap.

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 album group' restates the tool name 'createPortfolioGroup' with minimal variation, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what an 'album group' is in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'createCategoryGroup' or 'createTagGroup', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious creation action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to call listDataTypes first as hinted in the schema), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'createPortfolioPhoto' or 'updatePortfolioGroup', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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