eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—failing to mention that unspecified fields are preserved, what validation rules apply to addresses, or the response format.

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?

The four-word description is maximally concise, but this brevity renders it unhelpful rather than efficient. While not verbose, the sentence fails to earn its place by providing information beyond the tool name itself.

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 a nested address object with seven sub-fields and no output schema—the description is inadequate. It omits the scope of updatable fields, partial update behavior (only 'id' is required), and return value expectations, leaving significant gaps the agent must resolve through trial and error.

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 67% schema description coverage, the input schema adequately documents the id, name, and nested address_attributes fields. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., that address_attributes is optional or that id identifies the existing record), but the schema carries sufficient semantic weight to meet baseline expectations.

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 location' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the verb (update) and resource (course location), it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_course_location or delete_course_location, and omits the critical detail that this specifically handles address attributes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (create_course_location), prerequisites (existing location ID required), or whether partial updates are supported. The agent must infer usage patterns solely from the schema structure.

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