brilliant-directories-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a tag relationship' without explaining what this operation does (e.g., whether it's a write operation, if it requires authentication, potential side effects, or error conditions). This is inadequate for a tool with four required 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 extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. However, based on the scoring criteria for conciseness, it is front-loaded and wastes no words, earning a high score despite its inadequacy in other dimensions.

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 complexity (four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the four parameters (tag_id, object_id, tag_type_id, added_by) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they relate to creating a tag relationship, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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 tag relationship' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what a 'tag relationship' entails (e.g., associating a tag with an object), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createTag' or 'createTagType'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., 'createTag' for creating tags first, 'getTagRelationship' for retrieval, or 'deleteTagRelationship' for removal).

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