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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description omits critical behavioral details present in the schema: that login credentials may be emailed (with_authentication parameter), what error conditions occur for duplicate emails, or what the return value contains.

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), the description is inappropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool with nested address objects and authentication flows. It is front-loaded with minimal information rather than high-value context like side effects or return format.

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?

Grossly inadequate for the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema). Missing: return value structure, whether the created user ID is returned, email sending behavior, locale defaults, and the distinction between address_attributes and invoice_address_attributes.

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 73% schema description coverage, the parameter documentation is reasonably complete in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter guidance, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most fields (first_name, email, address_attributes, etc.).

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 user.' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It fails to specify the user type (student, teacher, admin) or distinguish from siblings like create_teacher, create_lead, or update_user.

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 versus create_teacher (which also creates a user-type entity), prerequisites for creation, or whether to use update_user for existing records. No mention of the email authentication flow.

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