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' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). It lacks critical behavioral context for a write operation.

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 four words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important details that would help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured support, the description should provide much more contextual information.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond implying email_id is needed for identification. With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It doesn't explain what email_type, triggers, signature, unsubscribe_link, or other fields represent or how they should be formatted.

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 an email template' clearly states the action (update) and resource (email template), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling update tools (like updateCategory, updateUser, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type, and it lacks specificity about what aspects of an email template can be updated.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing email_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from createEmailTemplate or deleteEmailTemplate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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