brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update a menu' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on related menu items), rate limits, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.

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 menu'), which is efficient but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the detail needed for effective tool use. The single sentence is front-loaded but doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, leaving the agent without necessary context for successful 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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (menu_id, menu_name, menu_title, menu_active) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or constraints (e.g., menu_active likely being a boolean flag). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 menu' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('menu') but doesn't clarify what aspects can be updated or distinguish this tool from other update tools like updateMenuItem or updateCategory. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious implication of modification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing menu_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like updateMenuItem or createMenu. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately in context.

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