eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations correctly mark this as non-readOnly and non-idempotent, the description adds no behavioral context. It fails to disclose that creation likely requires admin privileges, what validation occurs on the code field (uniqueness?), or that setting is_published=true likely makes the course visible to students immediately.

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 is technically concise but constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. For a tool with 9 parameters including complex nested objects and business logic dependencies, this length fails to front-load critical constraints or earning its brevity.

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 tool's complexity (nested arrays, conditional required fields like cost, enum logic for cost_scheme), the description is grossly incomplete. It omits the course-template nature of the resource, billing implications, and the prerequisite that category_id must reference an existing category. No output schema is present to compensate.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% (6 of 9 parameters described), placing it between the 50-80% threshold. The description adds no parameter guidance, but the schema adequately documents most fields including the cost/cost_scheme dependency and nested course_tab_contents_attributes structure. The 'custom' and 'custom_associations' objects remain opaque.

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 course' restates the tool name without distinguishing from critical siblings like 'create_planned_course' (likely for scheduling instances) or 'create_program' (curriculum containers). It fails to clarify what a 'course' represents in this domain (apparently a catalog template given the is_published and cost_scheme parameters).

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 versus 'update_course' (if a course code already exists) or 'create_planned_course' (for scheduling instances). The relationship between category_id requirement and prerequisite category creation is not mentioned.

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