eduframe-mcp

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

While the annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint: false), the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations provide. It does not disclose what gets created, whether duplicates are allowed, or side effects on existing invoices.

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 description is extremely brief (4 words) with no filler content, meeting conciseness requirements. However, it suffers from under-specification rather than verbosity. The single sentence exists but fails to earn its place by being redundant with the tool name.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the domain model (VAT configurations vs. invoice line items), return values, or how this relates to the broader invoicing system evidenced by sibling tools like get_invoice_vats and create_invoice.

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 (name and percentage parameters are both documented), the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters (e.g., expected format for percentage, uniqueness constraints for name), but the schema carries the full burden adequately.

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 an invoice vat' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_invoice_vat → 'Create an invoice vat'). It fails to clarify what an 'invoice vat' actually represents (likely a VAT tax rate/category) and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling create_invoice, which could confuse agents about whether this creates a tax configuration or a line item on an invoice.

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 alternatives like create_invoice, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a corresponding invoice must exist first). The score reflects 'no guidance' per the rubric.

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