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 review' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when only some fields are provided. For a 7-parameter mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is critically inadequate.

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 with just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, technically it wastes no words and has perfect front-loading. Every word earns its place, though there are far too few words to be helpful.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 14% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a review' entails, what fields are mutable, what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The agent would be operating almost blindly when invoking this tool.

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 only 14% (only review_status has a description), leaving 6 parameters completely undocumented. The description 'Update a review' adds zero semantic information about any parameters - it doesn't mention review_id is required, doesn't explain what fields can be updated, and provides no context for parameters like rating_overall or recommend. The description fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 review' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a review can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like updatePost or updateUser. The description lacks the verb+resource+scope clarity needed for effective tool selection.

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, when this tool is appropriate versus createReview or deleteReview, or any contextual usage information. The agent must infer everything 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.