eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations correctly flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description adds no behavioral context such as cascade effects (what happens to scheduled meetings at this location?), reversibility, or required permissions. For a destructive operation, this lack of side-effect disclosure is a gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. However, for a destructive operation with potential entity confusion, this brevity may be excessive rather than optimal.

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 destructive nature, the existence of similar sibling tools (delete_course_location), and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not clarify the domain model relationship between meeting locations and course locations, nor explain operational constraints.

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 for the 'id' parameter. The description itself adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (delete) and resource (course location), but uses 'course location' while the tool name uses 'meeting_location'. Given the sibling tool 'delete_course_location' exists, this terminology inconsistency creates ambiguity about which entity this tool actually removes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'delete_course_location', nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the location must be unused). The description stands alone without contextual usage signals.

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