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. It fails to mention whether this creates a persistent association, what happens if the referenced course/edition doesn't exist, or what the mutation returns.

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?

While brief (3 words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence provides no actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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 3-parameter mutation tool in a complex domain (evidenced by 100+ sibling tools) with no output schema or annotations, the description is radically incomplete. It should explain the entity relationships (course + edition + optional planned course) and side effects.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (course_id, edition_id, planned_course_id). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is complete.

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 element' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It fails to define what a 'program element' represents in this domain (likely a course-edition linkage) or how it differs from sibling entities like 'program', 'program_edition', or 'planned_course'.

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_planned_course or create_program_edition. Given the complex domain model suggested by sibling tools (programs, editions, elements, planned courses), the absence of selection criteria is a critical gap.

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