eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose that grade and score are mutually exclusive (at least one required), what happens if a grade already exists for the gradeable, or side effects like notifications triggered.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but given the tool's complexity (polymorphic references, conditional required fields), it is undersized rather than appropriately concise. It provides insufficient information density for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing.

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 tool with 5 parameters including a polymorphic association pattern and conditional logic (grade vs score), the description is incomplete. While the schema is well-documented, the description omits domain context (grading enrollments/courses), return value behavior, and the critical XOR relationship between grade and score parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the polymorphic pattern requiring gradeable_id + gradeable_type, or the grade/score relationship), but it doesn't detract from the well-documented 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 grade' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_grade) with minimal expansion. It fails to specify what constitutes a 'grade' in this domain (academic grading), what resource it creates (a grade record), or how it differs from sibling tools like update_grade or delete_grade.

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_grade (which also exists), or prerequisites such as requiring an existing enrollment/gradeable entity first. The polymorphic nature of gradeable_id/gradeable_type (implied by parameter descriptions) is not explained.

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