eduframe-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations correctly mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond these hints. It does not specify whether deletion is permanent, if cascading effects occur on related records, or what the tool returns upon success.

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 description is extremely brief (three words), but this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the sentence merely echoes the tool name without adding value.

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 existence of the confusing sibling tool 'delete_organization_affiliation' and the destructive nature of the operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks necessary disambiguation and behavioral details that would enable confident invocation despite the simple parameter structure.

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 (the 'id' parameter is documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., examples, format constraints, or lookup methods), but none are required given complete schema documentation.

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 'Delete an affiliation' is tautological, merely restating the tool name without specifying what an 'affiliation' represents in this domain. Crucially, it fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'delete_organization_affiliation', leaving ambiguity about which deletion primitive to use.

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 is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_organization_affiliation' or 'update_affiliation' to terminate rather than destroy). There are no prerequisites, warnings about dependencies, or conditions mentioned.

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