eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as whether cancellation is permanent, reversible, triggers notifications, or has side effects on related enrollments.

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?

While brief (three words), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence fails to earn its place by adding information beyond the tool name itself, functioning merely as a placeholder.

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 simple schema richness (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete for the tool ecosystem. Given numerous sibling cancellation tools with overlapping semantics, the failure to clarify scope or differentiate usage makes it inadequate for reliable agent selection.

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 ('ID of the enrollment'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information (such as where to obtain the ID or validation rules), warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Cancel an enrollment' is tautological—it simply restates the tool name with articles added. While it identifies the verb (cancel) and resource (enrollment), it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'cancel_program_enrollment' or 'cancel_order' that operate on similar concepts.

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 such as 'cancel_program_enrollment' or 'delete_teacher_enrollment'. Given the extensive list of sibling cancellation tools, the absence of selection criteria leaves the agent without decision-making context.

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