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. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and outcomes, making it insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their meanings (e.g., what 'rel_id', 'avg_price', etc., represent), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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-service relationship' clearly states the action (update) and resource (user-service relationship), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects are updated or differentiate from sibling tools like 'createUserService' or 'deleteUserService' beyond the verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing relationship), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'createUserService' or 'deleteUserService', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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