eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description confirms the mutation nature but adds no behavioral context about side effects, what happens to omitted fields, or how the nested course_tab_contents_attributes are processed (e.g., replaced, appended, or merged).

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 the four-word description is brief, it is underspecified rather than efficiently concise. It front-loads no critical information beyond the tool name itself and wastes the opportunity to explain complex nested structures like course_tab_contents_attributes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—including nested object arrays, 5 parameters, mutation semantics, and no output schema—the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the relationship between catalog products and course tabs, the purpose of the custom object, or provide any return value information.

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 80% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters (e.g., 'ID of the catalog product to update', 'The custom properties of the product'). The description adds no additional parameter guidance, examples, or constraints, meeting the baseline expectation 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 'Update a catalog product' essentially restates the tool name (update_catalog_product) with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like update_catalog_variant or update_course, and provides no domain context about what constitutes a catalog product in this system.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_catalog_variant), prerequisites for invocation (such as required permissions or pre-fetching the product), or whether this supports partial updates (PATCH) versus full replacements (PUT).

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