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 only states the basic action without clarifying side effects, reversibility, or impact on existing teacher enrollments. It does not indicate whether this operation affects historical data or merely prevents future assignments.

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 four-word description 'Mark teacher as inactive' is appropriately front-loaded with no redundant or wasteful language. Every word directly contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and the presence of a clear sibling inverse (`activate_teacher`), the description adequately conveys the basic operation but omits important mutation context such as reversibility confirmation or cascade effects. It meets minimum viability but leaves gaps for an agent determining operational safety.

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 its single `id` parameter, documenting it as 'ID of the teacher'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, meeting the baseline expectation when schema documentation 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 'Mark teacher as inactive' clearly identifies the verb (mark), resource (teacher), and end-state (inactive). While it implicitly contrasts with the sibling tool `activate_teacher` by specifying the inactive state, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use deactivation versus other lifecycle operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites such as teacher existence, or potential conflicts with active enrollments. It fails to mention the sibling `activate_teacher` as the reversal mechanism.

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