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. 'Update a category' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. It doesn't specify if changes are destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. This is a critical gap 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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, but for conciseness alone, it earns top marks as every word directly states the tool's action without waste.

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 complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly. This is a minimal description that fails to meet basic completeness needs.

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 none of the 6 parameters (category_id, name, filename, group_id, keywords, icon) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters do, their formats, or constraints. For example, it doesn't clarify that category_id is required or explain the purpose of fields like keywords or icon. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Update a category' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('category'), but provides no additional detail about what aspects of a category are updated or how this differs from other update tools like updateCategoryGroup. This is minimal but not completely misleading.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a category_id), differentiate from sibling tools like updateCategoryGroup or createCategory, or indicate any contextual constraints. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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