eduframe-mcp

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, readOnlyHint: false), but adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide, such as side effects or partial update behavior.

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 extremely brief (3 words), the description is not verbose or poorly structured. However, it lacks informational density—every sentence should earn its place, and this provides minimal value.

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?

Despite good annotations and schema coverage, the description fails to clarify the domain concept of an affiliation (linking users to accounts) or explain the update semantics (e.g., partial updates, immutability of certain fields).

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, the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage scenarios.

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 affiliation' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what an affiliation represents (a user-account relationship per the schema) or how it differs from create_affiliation or delete_affiliation siblings.

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, prerequisites for the update, or which fields are optional versus required beyond the schema itself.

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