EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not explain side effects, what happens to the class's previous owner/enrollments, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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?

While the single sentence is not verbose, it is inappropriately terse for the complexity of a transfer operation. The description is front-loaded with the verb but lacks the substance to be genuinely useful, failing the 'every sentence earns its place' standard due to under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 that this is a transfer operation with behavioral complexity (non-idempotent) and an output schema exists, the description is inadequate. It omits critical domain context such as permission requirements, the nature of the transfer relationship being created, and how it differs from membership operations in the sibling tool set.

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'), the parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., expected ID formats, whether the user must exist beforehand), meriting 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 'Transfer class to user' is extremely minimal and borders on tautology, essentially restating the tool name. While it identifies the action (transfer) and target resource (class), it fails to specify what 'transfer' entails (ownership change, enrollment, assignment?) or distinguish from similar sibling tools like edubase_post_user_classes or edubase_post_class_members.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edubase_post_class_members for adding members), prerequisites for the transfer, or conditions under which the operation might fail. The description offers zero contextual guidance for an agent deciding between the numerous similar membership/transfer tools available.

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