eduframe-mcp

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the provided annotations. While annotations correctly indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, the description fails to disclose what the tool returns (the created object ID or full object), error conditions (duplicate names), or side effects.

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 three-word description suffers from under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. While it contains no fluff, the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information beyond the tool name, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits return value documentation, error handling behavior, and domain context (how categories relate to courses/programs in this system) that would be necessary for correct agent invocation.

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 input parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context, but baseline expectations are met since name, description, is_published, and parent_id are all clearly defined in the JSON schema.

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 'Create a category.' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_category) with minimal variation. While it indicates a write operation, it fails to specify what domain these categories belong to (courses, products, content) or how they relate to the sibling tools like create_course or create_program.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_category, or prerequisites for creation. The description does not mention that categories can be hierarchical (implied by parent_id parameter) or explain the publishing workflow indicated by is_published.

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