EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations correctly indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds no context about what 'transfer' actually does—whether it creates a copy, moves ownership, or establishes a student-teacher relationship. The non-idempotent nature (idempotentHint: false) is noted in annotations but unexplained in the description.

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 single sentence is efficient with no redundant words, but it is arguably too terse for the complexity of a 'transfer' operation. It front-loads the action but leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Despite having an output schema (relieving the description of return value documentation), the description inadequately explains the transfer semantics. Given the destructiveHint is false, the agent needs to know what state changes occur—does the course change ownership, or is the user merely added? The description is insufficient for a mutating operation with non-idempotent behavior.

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 already documents both parameters as identification strings. The description does not add format details, examples, or semantic constraints (e.g., whether the user ID refers to the recipient or current owner), earning 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 states the basic action (transfer) and targets (course, user), but 'transfer' is semantically ambiguous—it could imply ownership change, enrollment, or assignment. It fails to distinguish from sibling transfer tools (e.g., edubase_post_class_transfer, edubase_post_event_transfer) or clarify the specific relationship being established.

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 versus alternatives like edubase_post_course_permission (which might grant access without transferring) or enrollment tools. No prerequisites (e.g., does the course need to be published? Does the user need specific permissions?) are mentioned.

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