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 reveals nothing about persistence (how long the webhook lasts), side effects (when event delivery starts), authentication/verification requirements, or error handling.

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?

At three words, the description is technically concise but suffers from under-specification. Given the tool has multiple parameters and no annotations, this brevity represents missed opportunity rather than efficient communication.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits critical context such as available event types, whether webhooks are verified upon creation, and the structure of any response.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (url, active, events). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 'Register a webhook' uses a synonym for 'create' but fails to distinguish from the sibling tool update_webhook or clarify what 'register' entails in this context. It essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration.

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 create_webhook versus update_webhook, nor any prerequisites (e.g., URL validation requirements, supported event types) or conditions for usage.

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