eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation type ('Create') but lacks critical details: idempotency, error handling (what if category_id is invalid?), side effects, or the return value structure (despite no output schema being defined).

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 three-word description is technically concise with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters including nested objects), extreme brevity here represents a failure to front-load critical domain context.

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 with 9 parameters, nested array objects (course_tab_contents_attributes), conditional logic (cost required based on cost_scheme), and numerous siblings with similar names, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain business rules or the domain model hierarchy (program vs edition vs element).

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 67% (6 of 9 parameters have descriptions). While the description adds no parameter-specific guidance, the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema adequately documents most fields, though it leaves custom, custom_associations, and course_tab_contents_attributes under-documented.

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 program' is a tautology that restates the tool name (create_program) without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_program_edition or create_program_element, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a 'program' in this domain.

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 (e.g., create_program_edition), prerequisites (e.g., existing category_id), or the relationship between cost_scheme and cost parameters. The description offers no operational context.

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