eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations correctly indicate idempotent, non-destructive write behavior, the description adds no context about what happens on creation (e.g., duplicate handling, side effects, or the relationship between object_slug and the created record). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 four-word description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, providing no actionable information beyond the tool name. No structural organization exists to prioritize critical constraints or usage patterns.

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 mutation tool handling nested property structures within a custom object system (implied by siblings), the description inadequately explains the data model, what constitutes valid properties content, or post-creation behavior. Critical contextual gaps remain despite existing annotations.

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 75% schema description coverage, the baseline semantics are handled by the schema itself. However, the description adds no value for the undocumented 'properties' object parameter or to clarify the confusing schema description of 'object_slug' (labeled as ID of the custom record despite being a creation operation).

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 custom record' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in sentence case. It fails to define what a 'custom record' is, how it relates to 'custom objects' (referenced in sibling tools like get_custom_object_by_object_slug), or distinguish its purpose from update_custom_record.

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_custom_record, or prerequisites such as requiring an existing custom object (implied by the object_slug parameter). The description lacks any mention of validation constraints or required conditions beyond the schema.

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