eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the 'update' operation name, so no contradiction exists. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—missing details on partial update support (evident in schema but not described), error handling for invalid IDs, or side effects like notification triggers.

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 three words and severely under-specified for a 7-parameter mutation tool. While not verbose, it fails the 'appropriately sized' criterion for the complexity involved—every sentence should earn its place, but this provides insufficient value for the agent's decision-making.

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 write operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the grading domain context (enrollments, gradeables), relationships to sibling CRUD tools (create_grade, delete_grade), and whether partial updates are supported (implied by optional parameters in schema but not confirmed in description).

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters (id, grade, score, gradeable_id, gradeable_type, comment, enrollment_id) documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline score of 3 applies when schema coverage is comprehensive.

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 grade' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it identifies the action (update) and resource (grade), it fails to specify the domain context (academic/LMS grading system evident from enrollment/gradeable parameters) or distinguish from sibling operations like create_grade or delete_grade.

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 update_grade versus create_grade (for new grades) or set_attendance (for related academic records). No mention of prerequisites like requiring an existing grade ID, or behavior when the grade doesn't exist.

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