eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context about side effects, validation rules, or what happens to nested course_tab_contents_attributes when updating.

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), it is inappropriately sized for a 14-parameter tool with nested objects. It lacks front-loaded critical information about partial update semantics and required ID parameter context.

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?

Completely inadequate for the complexity: 14 parameters including nested arrays (course_tab_contents_attributes), polymorphic custom fields, and financial settings (cost_scheme). No output schema means the description should explain return values or success indicators, but provides nothing.

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?

Schema coverage is 79% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions no parameters, but the schema adequately documents most fields including the enum for cost_scheme. No compensation provided for undocumented custom/custom_associations objects.

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 course.' is tautological, merely restating the tool name without specifying scope (partial vs full update), distinguishing from sibling create_course, or indicating which fields are updatable.

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 versus create_course, prerequisites for updating (e.g., draft vs published states), or whether omitted fields are preserved or reset.

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