eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation behavior, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond this. It fails to explain that repeated calls create duplicate labels or clarify the scope of created labels across different model types.

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?

Though extremely brief, the description is inappropriately sized—too short to provide useful context. It lacks complete sentences and fails to front-load critical distinctions from sibling tools.

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 risk of confusion with 'add_label_to_order' and the importance of the model_type enum (Lead, Order, etc.), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that this creates reusable label definitions rather than applying labels to specific records.

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, color, model_type all documented), the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 label' tautologically restates the tool name 'create_label' without distinguishing from siblings like 'add_label_to_order' (which applies labels) or clarifying that this creates label definitions.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_label_to_order', 'update_label', or 'delete_label'. No mention of prerequisites or expected workflow.

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