EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) that is non-destructive and non-idempotent, but the description fails to explain what 'transfer' entails (ownership reassignment, moving from another user, copying), leaving behavioral ambiguity despite the annotation safety profile.

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?

Extremely concise at four words with no filler. While appropriately front-loaded, it borders on under-specification given the complete absence of behavioral details, though it avoids 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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is minimally viable but lacks explanatory depth regarding the transfer operation's business logic and 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 ('event identification string', 'user identification string'), the schema fully documents parameters. The description mentions 'event' and 'user' but adds no additional semantic context (formats, constraints), 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 states the basic action (transfer) and target resource (event to user), but is minimal and does not meaningfully differentiate from sibling transfer tools (edubase_post_class_transfer, edubase_post_course_transfer, etc.) beyond restating the resource type already present in the function name.

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 alternative transfer tools, prerequisites for the operation (e.g., does the user need to exist? does the event need to be unassigned?), or when transfers are permitted.

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