eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure yet provides no information about destructiveness scope, cascade effects, soft vs hard deletion, or required permissions. The word 'Delete' implies mutation but lacks critical safety context.

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 (3 words), but this constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. No sentences exist to evaluate for earning their place, though the fragment is not verbose.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits expected details about deletion side effects, return values (success/failure indicators), or recovery options.

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 its single parameter (id), documenting it as 'ID of the program program to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline 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 program' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish from siblings like delete_program_edition or delete_program_element, leaving ambiguity about which program entity is targeted.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_program_enrollment), prerequisites (e.g., program state requirements), or what happens to dependent objects like editions or enrollments.

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