eduframe-mcp

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what happens during the update, side effects, or validation rules. No contradiction exists, but no value is added either.

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 brief at three words. While it avoids verbosity, it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. The content is front-loaded, but there is insufficient substance to evaluate structural effectiveness.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description could suffice if it clarified scope. However, it fails to mention that only status can be updated (not other lead attributes), nor does it address the enum values or their business meanings, leaving gaps given the sibling tool ecosystem.

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, both parameters (id and status) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden of documentation.

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 lead' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal expansion. While it identifies the resource (lead), it fails to specify what aspects can be updated (only status per the schema) or distinguish this tool from siblings like create_lead or delete_lead.

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. It does not mention that this is specifically for status transitions, nor does it clarify prerequisites (e.g., that the lead must exist) or when to use create_lead instead.

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