eduframe-mcp

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint: false confirms it's a write operation). It fails to disclose that the tool creates polymorphic associations across eight different entity types, or what happens upon successful creation.

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 (3 words), the description suffers from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing zero 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?

For a creation tool with polymorphic behavior (commenting on multiple entity types) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the scope of commentable entities, return value expectations, and side effects.

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 67% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents content and commentable_id. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema covers most parameter documentation without requiring compensation from the description.

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 comment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to mention the polymorphic nature of comments (can attach to Accounts, Invoices, Leads, etc. per the commentable_type enum) or distinguish from sibling tools like update_comment and delete_comment.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus update_comment, or prerequisites for creating comments. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' clauses despite the existence of related mutation tools in the sibling list.

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