EduBase MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint: false), but the description adds no context about these traits. It fails to explain what happens on duplicate calls, transfer failures, or side effects like notifications.

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 extremely brief at four words with no redundancy. While it could be argued it is under-specified rather than concise, it contains zero wasted words and front-loads the core action.

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 and annotations, the description is inadequate for a mutation tool with business logic implications. It fails to define 'transfer' semantics (move vs. copy, ownership vs. access) or explain the non-idempotent behavior indicated in annotations.

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 ('video identification string', 'user identification string'), the schema sufficiently documents parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('video to user'), meeting minimum viability. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling transfer tools (e.g., edubase_post_class_transfer) or clarify whether this changes ownership, grants access, or moves the resource between workspaces.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this versus edubase_post_video_permission, prerequisites (whether the user/video must exist), or if this is reversible.

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