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. 'Update a membership plan' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 three words. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is perfectly structured and 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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the basic verb, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no usage guidelines. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to properly invoke the 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 6 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention that 'subscription_id' is required, doesn't explain what fields like 'monthly_amount', 'yearly_amount', 'sub_active', or 'searchable' represent, and offers no guidance on parameter usage or constraints. 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 membership plan' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('membership plan'), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'updateUser' or 'updateService' beyond the resource name. No additional context about what aspects of a membership plan can be updated is provided.

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 operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'createMembershipPlan' or 'deleteMembershipPlan'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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