eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these structured fields. It does not explain partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved), what the properties object accepts, or any side effects of activation/deactivation.

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 description is extremely concise at four words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters including a complex nested object (properties) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the flexible properties schema, required identifiers, or return behavior, leaving critical gaps the agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 baseline is appropriately met by the schema itself. However, the description adds no value for the undocumented 'properties' parameter (which accepts arbitrary additionalProperties) or the relationship between object_slug and id.

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 custom record' is tautological, merely restating the tool name without distinguishing it from siblings like create_custom_record or delete_custom_record. It fails to specify what aspects of the record are updatable or the scope of the operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus create_custom_record, delete_custom_record, or other update operations. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., record must exist) or idempotency behavior despite the idempotentHint annotation.

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