EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description does not need to carry that burden. However, it fails to clarify behavioral specifics implied by idempotentHint: false, such as whether duplicate calls fail silently, throw errors, or create duplicate permissions. No contradictions with annotations.

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. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving room for one additional clarifying sentence without violating conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema and complete input schema documentation, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. However, for a permission creation tool with idempotentHint: false, the omission of conflict behavior and prerequisites leaves the description minimally viable rather than comprehensive.

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 ('class identification string', 'user identification string', and the permission enum values), the structured schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('permission for a user on a class'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_get_class_permission or edubase_post_course_permission through the combination of action and resource type, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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 similar tools like edubase_post_class_members or edubase_post_classes_members. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must already exist) and does not explain failure modes or idempotency behavior despite the idempotentHint: false annotation.

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