brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting user access). It lacks details on error conditions, response format, or confirmation requirements.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, parameters, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of a deletion operation, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 ('rel_id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'rel_id' represents (e.g., relationship ID from 'getUserService'), its format, or valid values. This leaves the parameter undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Remove a service from a user' clearly states the verb ('remove') and resource ('service from a user'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'service' means in this context (e.g., subscription, assigned role, linked account). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deleteUser' or 'deleteService' by specifying the relationship removal, but could be more precise.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the service must exist, the user must have the service), or what happens if the service isn't assigned. The presence of sibling tools like 'createUserService' and 'getUserService' implies a workflow, but this isn't explained.

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