brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters that presumably modifies data, this lack of behavioral context is critical.

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. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no redundant information and is properly front-loaded. Every word earns its place, even though far more information is needed.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no usage guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the 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 and 9 parameters, the description provides zero information about what any parameter means or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention service_id (the only required parameter) or explain what fields like lead_price, master_id, or sort_order represent. The agent must guess parameter purposes entirely from their names.

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 service' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. While it identifies the resource ('service') and verb ('update'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update operations like updateCategory or updateUser, nor does it clarify what aspects of a service can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameter list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a service_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like createService or deleteService. The agent must infer everything from the tool name and parameter schema alone.

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