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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, what happens when fields are updated, or any behavioral characteristics. The single verb 'Update' provides minimal information about the tool's behavior.

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 at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity, from a pure conciseness perspective it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core 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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand how to properly use this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (form_id, form_title, form_email_on), the description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't explain what form_id refers to, what form_title represents, or what form_email_on controls. 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 'Update a form' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'updateForm' without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what aspects of a form can be updated or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'updateFormField' or 'updateCategory'.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other update tools, or any contextual information about its application.

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