EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that this 'sets' an identifier but fails to explain idempotentHint=false (what happens if the ID already exists?) or whether this overwrites existing external IDs.

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 sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Set'. It is slightly wordy ('for question identified by a question identification string' is redundant), but generally efficient without extraneous information.

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 good schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability but lacks context expected for an identifier-mapping operation: validation rules, conflict resolution behavior, and the relationship to the corresponding GET endpoint (edubase_get_question_id).

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 fully documents both parameters ('question identification string' and 'external unique question identifier'). The description repeats these concepts but adds no additional semantic context such as ID format constraints, uniqueness requirements, or examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('external unique question identifier'), using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'edubase_post_question' (which creates questions) or clarify that this operates on existing questions only.

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 alternatives like 'edubase_get_question_id', nor does it mention prerequisites such as the question needing to exist beforehand. No exclusions or error conditions are documented.

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