eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates this is a write operation ('Create') but fails to disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., if the affiliation already exists), or whether the operation is reversible via 'delete_organization_affiliation'.

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 concise (5 words) with no redundant text. However, given the presence of similarly-named sibling tools and lack of annotations, this brevity sacrifices necessary context, making it slightly too terse for optimal utility.

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 creating a relationship between two entities (user and organization), the description should explain the business logic (linking users to orgs) and distinguish from 'create_affiliation'. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context, but given the schema documents 'key_contact' as optional and the IDs clearly, it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 states the verb ('Create') and resource ('organization affiliation record'), but it essentially restates the tool name without clarifying how this differs from the sibling tool 'create_affiliation'. It lacks specificity about what an organization affiliation represents (e.g., linking a user to an organization).

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 alternatives like 'create_affiliation' or 'update_organization_affiliation'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the user and organization must exist first) or idempotency concerns.

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