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 user photo' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the operation actually does to the photo. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly structured for its length - it states the core action immediately without preamble or redundancy.

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address any of the critical contextual information needed: what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, when to use it, what the parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the outcome will be. 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 2 parameters (photo_id and type), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The schema shows photo_id is required and type has enum values, but the description doesn't explain what photo_id refers to, what the type parameter controls, or how these interact. For a tool with undocumented parameters, the description adds no compensating semantic information.

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 user photo' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'updateUserPhoto' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspect of a user photo is being updated (metadata, content, visibility) or what resources are involved beyond the basic verb-noun pairing. While it's clear this is an update operation on user photos, it lacks the differentiation from sibling tools like 'createUserPhoto' or 'deleteUserPhoto' that would elevate it.

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 user photo), when this should be used instead of create/delete operations, or any contextual constraints. With multiple sibling tools for user photos (createUserPhoto, deleteUserPhoto, getUserPhoto, listUserPhotos), this omission is particularly problematic.

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