eduframe-mcp

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

The description adds zero behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It does not explain whether deletion is permanent or soft, what happens to child resources, or any side effects, despite this being a destructive operation.

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 concise at only four words, which prevents verbosity but results in under-specification. While it is front-loaded with the action verb, the brevity fails to meet the information density required for a destructive operation.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain deletion semantics (hard vs soft), recoverability, or cascading effects. The 100% input schema coverage is the only factor preventing a score of 1.

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, the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself (object_slug as 'ID of the parent resource' and id as 'ID of the custom record to delete'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 a custom record' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minor grammatical changes. While it identifies the verb (Delete) and resource (custom record), it fails to differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools (delete_comment, delete_grade, etc.) or explain what constitutes a 'custom record' in this domain.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_custom_record, prerequisites for deletion, or warnings about when deletion might fail (e.g., if the record is referenced elsewhere).

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