EduBase MCP Server

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it explicitly states that existing memberships are updated rather than causing duplicates or errors. This clarifies the non-idempotent update semantics despite the annotation idempotentHint=false, though it could further explain what fields get updated (expiry? role?).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second clarifies the upsert behavior. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information. Appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with good safety annotations and comprehensive input schema, the description adequately covers the operation's scope and side effects. Missing output value description, but no output schema exists to require such documentation. Could mention whether partial failures are possible when assigning multiple classes.

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 fully documents the comma-separated format for classes and the date formats for expires. The description adds no redundant parameter details but implicitly supports the 'classes' parameter semantics through the upsert explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Assign', 'Updates') and clearly identifies the resource (user-to-class membership). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like edubase_get_user_classes (read) and edubase_delete_user_classes (remove), and implies the user-centric direction (vs edubase_post_class_members which is class-centric).

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 second sentence provides implicit usage guidance by clarifying the upsert behavior (updates existing memberships rather than erroring). However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance versus similar tools like edubase_post_class_members, and doesn't mention prerequisites or the expires/notify parameters' use cases.

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