brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a lead' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. It lacks critical context like rate limits, side effects, or response format expectations 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 ('Update a lead') which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings beyond the minimal schema coverage, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant guessing.

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 only 25% (only lead_status has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what lead_id identifies, what lead_name or lead_notes represent, or how they interact. For 4 parameters with low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 lead' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('lead'), but doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools like updateUser or updatePost, nor does it clarify what aspects of a lead can be updated beyond what's implied by the name.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing lead_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like createLead or deleteLead. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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