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 but provides none. It fails to mention side effects (notifications triggered), idempotency, validation rules for the due_date format, or whether the operation returns the created task ID.

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, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For an 8-parameter tool with complex entity relationships, three words is insufficient to earn a higher score on this dimension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters including polymorphic subject references) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context about task assignment workflows, the subject linking mechanism, and expected behavior.

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 no parameter-specific context (e.g., explaining the relationship between subject_type and subject_id, or that only name is required), but the schema adequately documents individual fields.

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 task.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without elaborating on the resource type or its domain context. It fails to distinguish this from sibling creation tools (e.g., create_course, create_lead) or explain that tasks link to subjects like Courses, Accounts, or Leads.

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 (update_task vs create_task), prerequisites for creation, or required relationships (e.g., whether subject_id is mandatory when subject_type is provided).

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