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' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 4 words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, the description is perfectly structured as a simple verb-noun phrase that gets straight to the point.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'album photo' is in this context, what fields can be updated, what the update operation entails, or what to expect as a result. The agent has insufficient information to use this tool effectively.

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 for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'photo_id', 'title', or 'order' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone. This is inadequate compensation 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 an album photo' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('album photo'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'updatePortfolioGroup' or 'updateUserPhoto' - all are update operations on different resources. The description is adequate but lacks differentiation from similar update operations.

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 a photo_id), when this should be used instead of createPortfolioPhoto or deletePortfolioPhoto, or any context about what constitutes an 'album photo' versus other photo types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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