eduframe-mcp

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

While the description doesn't contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint: false aligns with 'Create'), it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. It omits whether creation is conditional, what identifiers are returned, or how this relates to the broader course management workflow.

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 brief but constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. No information is front-loaded; the single sentence merely restates the obvious operation implied by the tool name without earning its place through utility.

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 creates a resource with complex nested address parameters and lacks an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the entity lifecycle, address field requirements, or expected return behavior, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 50% top-level schema coverage (name is documented, address_attributes object lacks a description), the description fails to compensate for the undocumented nested structure. It provides no guidance on address formatting, required fields within the address object, or the relationship between the location name and address fields.

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 location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_meeting_location or clarify what constitutes a 'course location' in this domain.

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 (e.g., update_course_location for modifying existing locations), nor are prerequisites or validation rules mentioned. The agent receives no signals about appropriate usage contexts.

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