brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a click record' implies a mutation operation, but it reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral context is 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 maximally concise at just four words. There is zero wasted language or redundancy. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what a 'click record' is, what fields can be updated, behavioral characteristics, or expected outcomes. The agent would have insufficient context 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (click_id, click_type, click_name, click_url) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds absolutely no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, constraints, or relationships. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 click record' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'updateClick' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('click record'), but provides no details about what a 'click record' represents or what aspects can be updated. While it distinguishes from obvious non-update siblings, it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like updateCategory or updateUser.

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. There are multiple sibling update tools (e.g., updateCategory, updateUser, updatePost) and related tools (createClick, deleteClick, getClick, listClicks), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from these other tools.

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