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. 'Create a post' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 (two words) but this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the necessary elaboration for a tool of this complexity. Every word earns its place, but there are far too few words for adequate tool documentation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'post' is in this system, doesn't reference the critical data_type parameter workflow, doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the 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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions), but the description text adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what any parameter means, their relationships, or provide context beyond what's in the schema. For a tool with complex parameters like data_type that requires calling another tool first, the description should at minimum reference this workflow requirement.

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 post' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of post is being created, what system it's for, or how it differs from sibling tools like createPage or createReview. The description provides no meaningful elaboration beyond the tool 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling creation tools (createCategory, createPage, createReview, etc.), but the description offers no context about when a post is appropriate versus these other content types. No prerequisites, constraints, or workflow guidance is mentioned.

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