EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations declare the operation as destructive and idempotent, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not clarify what happens if the specified permission doesn't exist, whether the user loses all exam access or just this specific level, or what the output schema contains.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and conveys the essential operation without extraneous information.

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 presence of detailed annotations (destructive/idempotent hints) and complete input schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability. However, for a destructive permission operation, it lacks contextual details about side effects or permission hierarchy that would help an agent understand the full impact of invocation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself ('exam identification string', 'user identification string', permission enum values). The description adds no supplementary semantics, syntax examples, or format details beyond the schema definitions, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('user permission from an exam') that clearly identifies the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edubase_delete_exam' (which deletes the exam itself) and 'edubase_delete_exam_users' (which removes users entirely) by explicitly targeting 'permission'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'edubase_delete_exam_users' (which likely removes all user access) or 'edubase_post_exam_permission' (which grants permissions). No prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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