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. 'Create a metadata record' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 5 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 three words with no wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'user meta' means, how it relates to users, what happens when metadata is created for non-existent records, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks essential context to use this 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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'database' and 'database_id' refer to (target table and record), what 'key' and 'value' represent in metadata context, or the optional 'date_added' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the 40% coverage gap in the schema.

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 metadata record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'createUserMeta'. It doesn't specify what kind of metadata is being created, for what resource, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'createUser' or 'updateUserMeta'. While 'create' indicates a write operation, the purpose remains vague and undifferentiated.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of 'createUser' or 'updateUserMeta', or what context requires metadata creation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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