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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of photos), or returns any confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and outcome information.

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 operation and front-loads the core action ('Delete'). No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration are present.

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, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens upon deletion (e.g., error if group doesn't exist, confirmation message), permissions required, or relationship to sibling tools (e.g., use after getPortfolioGroup). For a mutation tool, this leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (group_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to explain what 'group_id' represents or where to obtain it. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the complete lack of parameter guidance in the description reduces this to 3 as it adds no value beyond the bare 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 'Delete an album group' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('album group'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete tools in the sibling list (like deleteCategory, deleteUser, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes this deletion operation unique.

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. With sibling tools like 'deletePortfolioPhoto' and 'getPortfolioGroup' available, there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing the group_id from a get operation first) or when deletion is appropriate versus updating or retrieving. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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