eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as whether the deletion is soft/hard, if it cascades to related records, or what recovery options exist. It merely restates the operation type already implied by annotations.

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) and front-loaded, containing no filler. However, this extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, as the single sentence fails to deliver additional value beyond the tool name.

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 input schema (single ID parameter with full documentation) and comprehensive annotations covering safety, the description meets minimum viability. However, for a destructive operation, the absence of any mention of side effects or data recovery keeps it from being fully complete.

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 material to delete'), the baseline score applies. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states the core action ('Delete') and resource ('material'), but is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_material_group' or explain the specific scope of 'material' in this 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_material' to archive instead of delete), nor are prerequisites mentioned (such as whether the material must be unused). The description lacks explicit when/when-not direction.

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