eduframe-mcp

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description fails to explain what happens if the option already exists, what validation rules apply, or any side effects of adding an option to an active custom field.

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 (6 words) and front-loaded, but this represents under-specification rather than useful conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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 presence of four parameters with confusing schema descriptions and multiple sibling tools handling the same resource (get, update, delete options), the description is critically incomplete. It lacks return value documentation, error conditions, and relationships between object_type and field_slug parameters.

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 75% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the confusing schema (where both object_type and field_slug are erroneously described as 'ID of the custom field option'). The description adds no clarification for these parameters or the value parameter, leaving the agent to rely on misleading schema documentation.

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 'Add an option to a custom field' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to differentiate from siblings like update_option_of_custom_field or delete_option_of_custom_field, and adds no specificity about scope or constraints.

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. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus update_option_of_custom_field (e.g., for creating new vs. modifying existing options), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring the custom field to exist first), and no warnings about duplicate values.

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