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 fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'delete' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place, but the place is minimal.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, parameter meaning, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks essential context to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'service_id' represents, its format, valid ranges, or where to obtain it. The single parameter remains undocumented, leaving the agent guessing about proper usage.

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 service' restates the tool name 'deleteService' almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it specifies the resource ('service'), it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like deleteCategory or deleteUser, nor does it clarify what constitutes a 'service' in this 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid service_id), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools like deleteService versus deleteUserService. This leaves the agent with no contextual decision-making help.

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