eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet provides none. It does not specify whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to teacher_enrollments or other related entities, or if the operation can be reversed. The single word 'Delete' implies destruction but lacks crucial safety context for 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 brief (three words), which prevents verbosity, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place because it merely labels the tool rather than describing it, providing no actionable information beyond the 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?

As a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain side effects, cascade behavior, and recovery options. Given the ecosystem complexity (evidenced by 100+ sibling tools including teacher_enrollments and planned_courses), the description is dangerously incomplete for a deletion tool.

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 ('ID of the teacher role to delete'), so the schema adequately documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter format, validation rules, or how to obtain valid IDs, warranting the baseline score.

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 teacher role' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with spaces added. While it identifies the verb (delete) and resource (teacher role), it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like delete_teacher_enrollment or clarify the scope/semantics of 'teacher role' versus other teacher-related entities.

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 like update_teacher_role (modification vs deletion) or deactivate_teacher. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the role must be unassigned from all teachers first) or consequences of deletion.

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