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 post type' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing data, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description provides no behavioral context whatsoever.

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, with no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, it's technically efficient in its brevity. The structure is simple and direct, though this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful content.

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 a mutation tool with three parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool actually does beyond the obvious verb-noun pairing, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no indication of what success or failure looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description provides zero information about any of the three parameters (data_id, category_tab, per_page). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides basic types without meaning, and the description doesn't compensate at all. The agent has no idea what 'data_id' refers to, what 'category_tab' represents, or how 'per_page' affects the update operation. This creates significant ambiguity for proper tool invocation.

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 type' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'updatePostType' without adding meaningful context. While it identifies the resource ('post type') and action ('update'), it lacks specificity about what aspects of a post type can be updated or how this differs from other update tools like updatePost or updateCategory. The description doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings beyond the obvious resource name.

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 are multiple sibling update tools (updatePost, updateCategory, updateTag, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific post type update tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what distinguishes it from other update operations. This leaves the agent guessing about proper application.

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