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 without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that this is a destructive operation, potential side effects (e.g., data loss, impact on related records), authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 ('Delete a member/user') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

For a destructive tool with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation nature, potential consequences, or what to expect upon success/failure. Given the context, it should provide more guidance to be adequately helpful.

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 50% (only delete_images has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain user_id or provide context for delete_images beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented user_id parameter.

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 member/user' clearly states the action (delete) and target (member/user), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., deleteCategory, deletePost) beyond the target type, and 'member/user' is somewhat vague about the exact resource being deleted.

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 like updateUser or deleteUserMeta, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, permissions required). It lacks context for distinguishing among the many delete operations in the sibling list.

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