eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already establish idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update'—it doesn't clarify if omitted optional fields (email, phone, address) are cleared or preserved, nor does it mention side effects like triggering validation or webhooks.

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?

While brief (3 words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. No value is front-loaded; the description wastes the opportunity to convey critical context about the update behavior or account scope.

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 complex mutation tool with 7 parameters (including nested address objects, custom properties, and label arrays), the description is grossly inadequate. No output schema is present, yet the description doesn't indicate what the tool returns (updated object, success boolean, etc.).

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 86% schema description coverage, the input schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description mentions no parameters, but the schema adequately documents all fields including the nested address_attributes structure. Baseline score applies since the schema compensates.

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 'Update an account' is a tautology that restates the tool name (update_account). While it implies a mutation operation, it fails to specify what constitutes an 'account' in this context (billing entity, user profile, organization) or distinguish scope from sibling tools like create_account or get_account.

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 create_account (for new records) or get_account (for retrieval). No mention of prerequisites such as requiring an existing account ID, or whether this performs partial updates (PATCH) or full replacements (PUT) given the required 'name' field.

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