eduframe-mcp

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate the operation is non-destructive and idempotent, but the description doesn't clarify what happens when optional parameters are omitted or whether the operation is reversible.

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 (three words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool 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?

Given the presence of sibling CRUD operations and the fact that 'content' is optional (while 'id' is required), the description fails to explain the partial update semantics or expected behavior, leaving critical gaps despite the simple schema.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (id and content). The description mentions neither, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic 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 'Update a comment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It fails to specify what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs full replacement) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_comment or delete_comment.

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 (create_comment, delete_comment), nor any mention of prerequisites such as the comment needing to exist beforehand.

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