EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing the mutation safety profile. The description confirms the destructive action (remove) but adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as whether removal affects historical data or what occurs if the user is not enrolled in a specified class.

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 four-word sentence is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core action. While it wastes no space, it is arguably underspecified given the availability of sibling tools and the destructive nature of the operation.

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 simple two-parameter input schema with complete field descriptions and comprehensive annotations, the minimal description is technically sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks completeness regarding error handling, partial success scenarios, or the fact that classes must be specified as comma-separated values.

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 (parameters documented as 'user identification string' and 'comma-separated list of class identification strings'), the description meets baseline expectations without needing to repeat parameter semantics, though it adds no supplementary context about ID formats or validation.

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 'Remove user from class(es)' clearly identifies the verb (remove) and resources (user, class), satisfying the basic requirement. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool edubase_delete_class_members, which likely performs a similar operation from the class-centric perspective rather than user-centric.

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 (e.g., edubase_delete_class_members for bulk removal from a single class, or edubase_post_user_classes for adding users), nor does it mention prerequisites such as user existence or enrollment status.

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