eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals nothing about idempotency (can the same teacher be assigned twice?), side effects, error conditions, or the return value. The term 'Assign' implies creation, but behavioral specifics for this mutation are absent.

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 with the action verb and contains no redundant words. While extremely brief, it efficiently communicates the core function without filler, though additional sentences would improve completeness.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as prerequisite conditions, conflict handling (if teacher already assigned), and whether the operation is reversible (though 'delete_planning_attendee' exists as a sibling, this relationship isn't noted).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by mapping 'attendable' to 'meeting or planning event', but does not explain the optional 'teacher_role_id' parameter or provide usage examples for the polymorphic attendable fields beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses specific verbs ('Assign') and resources ('teacher', 'meeting or planning event') that clearly map to the tool name and schema. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'create_planning_required_teacher_group_attendee', leaving ambiguity about individual vs. group attendee creation.

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_planning_required_teacher_group_attendee', nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the meeting/event must exist beforehand). The description offers no 'when-not' exclusions or workflow context.

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