brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to related data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 - a single five-word sentence. While this could be considered efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. There's no wasted language, but also no helpful information beyond the basic operation name.

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?

This is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter. The description provides minimal information about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it correctly, what to expect, or what could go wrong. For a deletion tool in a complex system with many sibling tools, this is completely inadequate.

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%, meaning the single parameter 'meta_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'meta_id' represents, how to obtain valid IDs, what format they should be in, or what happens if an invalid ID is provided. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 metadata record' restates the tool name 'deleteUserMeta' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'metadata record', but doesn't clarify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'deleteUser' or 'deleteUserPhoto' - it's unclear what type of metadata or whose metadata is 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling deletion tools (deleteUser, deleteUserPhoto, deleteUserService, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this specific deletion operation appropriate or when it should be chosen over other deletion tools.

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