EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the upsert behavior ('Updates memberships if already member'), but does not address error cases, return values, or side effects like notifications beyond the parameter default.

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 consists of exactly two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence immediately clarifies the upsert behavior without unnecessary verbosity.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core operation and upsert behavior but leaves gaps regarding success/failure responses, the distinction between single and bulk member operations (given the 'classes_members' sibling), and whether the operation triggers notifications or other side effects.

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 schema fully documents parameter formats (e.g., comma-separated users, expiry formats). The description mentions 'user(s)' and 'class' but does not add semantic meaning, constraints, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Assign user(s) to a class') and resource, and adds valuable scope clarification by noting it updates existing memberships (upsert behavior). However, it does not distinguish from the similar sibling tool 'edubase_post_classes_members' (plural), which appears to be a bulk variant.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_post_classes_members' or 'edubase_delete_class_members', nor any mention of prerequisites or preconditions for assignment.

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