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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify if this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). It also omits details like error handling or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence, 'Delete a form field', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this 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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or outcomes, nor does it explain the parameter meaning. For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse or confusion, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('field_id'), the schema only indicates it's a required integer. The description doesn't explain what 'field_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any semantic detail reduces it to 3, as the description fails to compensate for the schema's minimal 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 'Delete a form field' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a form field'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteForm' or 'deleteCategory', which follow the same pattern, nor does it specify what constitutes a form field in this context. It's adequate but lacks specificity about scope or uniqueness compared to other deletion tools.

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 (e.g., needing an existing form field), exclusions, or related tools like 'deleteForm' or 'updateFormField'. Without any context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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