brilliant-directories-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete a redirect' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, if there are side effects (e.g., broken links), or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive operation 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 at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication where every word serves a purpose.

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, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like success/error responses, irreversible effects, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing to fetch redirects first). For a delete operation in a system with many related tools, this leaves the agent under-informed about proper usage and outcomes.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'redirect_id' documented as 'Redirect primary key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as how to obtain the ID or format constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 redirect' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (redirect), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like deleteCategory, deletePost, etc.), nor does it specify what a 'redirect' refers to in this context. It's adequate but lacks specificity about the domain context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a redirect_id from getRedirect or listRedirects), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling tools including getRedirect and updateRedirect, this omission leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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