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 redirect' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical lack of transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 consists of exactly three words that convey the core action. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, it's maximally concise and front-loaded with the essential information it does provide.

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 this is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating a redirect' actually means in practice, what the expected outcome is, or provide any context about the redirect system. The agent would need to infer everything from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection and 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 100%, meaning all 6 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 redirect' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'updateRedirect'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what aspects of a redirect are updated or how this differs from other update tools like updatePost or updateUser. While it's clear this modifies redirects, it doesn't distinguish itself meaningfully from sibling tools.

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's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing redirect_id), when this should be used instead of createRedirect or deleteRedirect, or any context about appropriate use cases. The agent receives zero usage direction from this description.

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