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 but only states the action 'Delete' without disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to address critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation data, making it inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 menu', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity, but strictly on conciseness, it earns full marks.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI 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 0%, with one parameter (menu_id) undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a menu identifier is needed, failing to explain what menu_id represents (e.g., numeric ID from a list) or format expectations, offering minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 menu' restates the tool name 'deleteMenu' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'menu', but lacks distinction from sibling delete tools (e.g., deleteCategory, deletePost) beyond the resource name, offering no insight into scope or uniqueness.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a menu_id), exclusions, or comparisons with other delete operations in the sibling list, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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