EduBase MCP Server

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

While annotations cover readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema. It fails to explain the non-idempotent behavior (will it error or duplicate on re-creation?), permission level semantics (what distinguishes 'control' from 'admin'?), or side effects.

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 7-word sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler text.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage) and existence of an output schema, the minimal description is technically adequate. However, it lacks contextual depth regarding the permission hierarchy (view < report < control < modify < grant < admin) and conflict behavior expected for a non-idempotent write operation.

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 including enum values for the permission parameter, the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, 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 provides a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('permission'), and scope ('for a user on an exam'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edubase_post_class_permission or edubase_delete_exam_permission by explicitly naming the exam resource and create action.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edubase_patch_exam_permission if it existed), prerequisites (e.g., requiring admin rights), or conflict resolution (idempotentHint is false but the description doesn't state what happens if the permission already exists).

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