eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these structured hints. It does not explain what constitutes a duplicate (given idempotentHint=false), what relationships are formed, or what the return value represents.

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 this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable information, leaving the agent with no more knowledge than 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?

Given the existence of 'create_course' and 'get_course_variants' siblings, the description inadequately explains the domain concept of a 'variant'. Without clarifying the relationship between courses and their variants, the agent lacks critical context for correct invocation despite the simple schema.

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 'name' parameter is documented as 'The name of the course variant'), the description meets the baseline expectation. However, the description itself mentions no parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the 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 course variant' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_course_variant) with spaces added. It fails to define what a 'course variant' is or how it differs from the sibling tool 'create_course', leaving the agent without domain context to select the correct tool.

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 'create_course' or other sibling tools like 'create_program'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or workflow context indicating when variants are appropriate.

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