brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a post' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what to expect in return, or the implications of the update operation.

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 low at 25%, with only one parameter (post_status) having a description. The description 'Update a post' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what post_id, post_title, or post_content are, or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 post' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('post'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of a post can be updated or differentiate it from other update tools like updatePage or updateUser, making it somewhat vague rather than specific.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a post_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from createPost or deletePost. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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