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 offers minimal information. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what the response contains. The schema's enum description provides some behavioral context for 'lead_status', but this isn't part of the tool description itself.

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, with zero wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description is perfectly front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage or structural issues.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'lead match' means in this context, what fields can be updated, what the operation returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The schema provides some parameter documentation, but the description fails to provide the necessary context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 33% (1 of 3 parameters has a description), so the description should compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. The schema provides excellent documentation for 'lead_status' with enum values and usage notes, but 'match_id' and 'lead_response' lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 match' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what aspects of a lead match can be updated or what the operation entails. While the name suggests modifying an existing lead match, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond this basic inference.

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 are sibling tools like 'updateLead' and 'createLeadMatch' that handle related operations, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool's specific use case or mention any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation.

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