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. 'Update a tag' 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. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic verb meaning.

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 severely under-specified, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. This extreme brevity represents efficient communication, though 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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'tag' is in this system, what updates are possible, what the tool returns, or any behavioral constraints. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool use.

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 for both parameters (id and tag_name), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents (tag identifier), what 'tag_name' modifies, or the relationship between these parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters semantically undefined.

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 tag' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'updateTag' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a tag can be updated (e.g., name, properties, relationships) or distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'updateTagGroup' or 'updateTagType'. The description provides minimal value beyond the obvious from the 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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tag ID), comparison to sibling tools like 'createTag' or 'deleteTag', or context about what constitutes a valid update scenario. 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.