brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a menu item,' which implies a mutation but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior and risks.

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 three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a menu item'), though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. In terms of structure, it's minimal and direct, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, leaves parameters undocumented, omits behavioral context, and provides no output information. This makes it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 5 parameters (menu_item_id, menu_name, menu_link, menu_order, menu_active) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—not their purposes, formats (e.g., what menu_active values mean), or relationships. This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics, which is highly problematic for a tool with multiple inputs.

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 item' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'menu item' is in this context or what aspects can be updated. While it includes a verb and resource, it's essentially tautological with the tool name and lacks distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'updateMenu' or 'createMenuItem'.

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 item ID), compare to sibling tools like 'createMenuItem' or 'deleteMenuItem', or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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