eduframe-mcp

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as warning about irreversibility, explaining cascading effects on related records, or confirming the idempotent nature.

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 terse at three words, containing no redundant or filler content. While appropriately sized in terms of lack of verbosity, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary context 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 the simple single-parameter schema with complete annotations covering safety profiles, the description is minimally sufficient. However, for a destructive operation without an output schema, the lack of warning about data loss or impact scope leaves a notable gap.

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 parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema itself ('ID of the lead to delete'). The description adds no supplementary parameter guidance (e.g., where to find the ID, format constraints), 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 lead.' is a tautology that restates the tool name (delete_lead) with minimal variation. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to specify scope (e.g., permanent vs. soft delete) or distinguish from siblings like update_lead or create_lead.

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., when to delete vs. update a lead), nor does it mention prerequisites such as lead status or permissions. It lacks any 'when-not-to-use' warnings.

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