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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it provides none. It does not indicate whether creation is immediate, if it triggers side effects (notifications, emails), whether it is idempotent, or what authorization is required for the 11-parameter mutation operation.

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 brief (3 words) and front-loaded, but it is inappropriately sized for the tool's complexity. While not verbose or redundant, the single sentence fails to earn its place because it provides only tautological information without substance.

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 complex creation tool with 11 parameters (including nested objects and conditional requirements like cost depending on cost_scheme), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It lacks any explanation of return values, error conditions, or relationships to the broader program management workflow.

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 82% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters effectively (e.g., 'cost_scheme' enum values, 'min_participants' semantics). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the high schema coverage establishes a baseline score of 3.

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 edition' is tautological, merely restating the tool name with spaces added. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_program' or 'update_program_edition', and offers no explanation of what constitutes a 'program edition' 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_program' for the parent entity), nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring an existing program_id from a previously created program). The description offers zero contextual usage hints.

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