eduframe-mcp

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

Adds crucial behavioral details beyond annotations: explains the state machine transition (concept→open), the side effect of invoice number assignment, and confirms idempotent behavior ('does nothing' if already processed). Does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but covers the essential mutation behavior clearly.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: action (sentence 1), consequence/value (sentence 2), guard condition/idempotency (sentence 3). Information is front-loaded and logically sequenced.

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 single-parameter state transition tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the trigger condition, the transformation, the side effects, and the safety/idempotency behavior. No critical gaps remain given the tool's simplicity.

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 invoice'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description implies the parameter by referencing 'the invoice' but does not add syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full load.

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 explicitly states the core action ('Changes the state from concept to open'), the resource (invoice), and the side effect ('assign the actual invoice number'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_invoice or get_invoice by specifying this is a state transition workflow tool.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('If the current state is not concept, this endpoint does nothing'), establishing the prerequisite state for usage. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_invoice for creating the initial concept invoice.

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