eduframe-mcp

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by using the word 'Remove', but adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention idempotency (covered by annotation), irreversibility, or whether the user is notified.

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?

Extremely efficient at 6 words with zero redundancy. The single sentence is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable despite its brevity.

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 destructive two-parameter operation with 100% schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'authentication' specifically refers to (API key, OAuth, password) and immediate side effects, which would be valuable given the destructive nature.

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 100% schema description coverage ('ID of the authentication to delete', 'ID of the parent resource'), the description meets the baseline. It adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb (Remove) and resource (authentication) with scope (from a user). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete operations like delete_affiliation, the specific resource 'authentication' provides sufficient distinction in context.

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 (e.g., deactivate vs delete), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the authentication ID from get_authentications_by_user_id or potential side effects like invalidating active sessions.

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