eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Assign' implies a write operation, the description fails to clarify if this action is reversible (how to unassign), idempotent (safe to call twice), or what side effects occur (e.g., validation constraints on the teacher or group).

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 description is efficiently structured with no redundant words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical behavioral and contextual information unstated.

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?

As a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the domain concept of 'required teacher group' and what the assignment enables (e.g., scheduling constraints, eligibility). It currently provides only the minimal operation label without functional context.

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 schema already documents both parameters clearly ('Unique identifier of the teacher to assign', 'Unique identifier of the required teacher group to satisfy'). The description reinforces the assignment concept but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Assign') and identifies both resources involved (teacher and required teacher group), clearly stating what the tool accomplishes. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'create_planning_attendee' or 'create_teacher_enrollment'.

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. Given siblings like 'create_planning_attendee' and 'create_teacher_enrollment', the agent needs explicit criteria to distinguish between general attendees, teacher enrollments, and required teacher group assignments.

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