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. 'Link a service to a user' suggests a mutation operation (creating an association), but it doesn't describe what happens on success (e.g., returns a record ID), failure modes (e.g., duplicate links), side effects, or required permissions. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps 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 (5 parameters, mutation likely), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or the meaning of key parameters like 'specialty' with an enum, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 (20%), with only the 'date' parameter documented. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'user_id', 'service_id', 'avg_price', or 'specialty' represent, their relationships, or why they're needed for linking. This leaves most parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Link a service to a user' clearly states the action (link) and resources (service, user), but it's vague about what 'link' means operationally (e.g., association, subscription, assignment). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'createUser' or 'createService' by focusing on the relationship, but doesn't differentiate from 'updateUserService' or 'listUserServices' in terms of when to use each.

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 like 'updateUserService' or 'listUserServices'. The description implies it's for creating a link, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., existing user and service), error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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