eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe, retryable write operation. The description adds no behavioral context about partial versus full updates, field preservation rules, or side effects, despite the ambiguity of whether omitted parameters (name, material_group_id) are cleared or ignored.

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?

At three words, the description is not verbose, but it is inefficiently terse—it wastes the opportunity to provide necessary context. The single sentence states the obvious without earning its place through valuable additive information.

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 idempotent semantics and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about the relationship between materials and material groups (given the material_group_id parameter) and whether unspecified fields are preserved during update. The distinction from 'update_material_group' remains unclear despite the sibling tool's existence.

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, the schema fully documents all three parameters (id, name, material_group_id). The description adds no semantic clarification about valid material states, naming constraints, or material group relationships, meriting the baseline score for complete schemas.

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 material' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with spaces added. While it identifies the verb (Update) and resource (material), it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'update_material_group' or clarify what constitutes a 'material' in this domain.

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 tool versus alternatives such as 'create_material' (for new materials) or 'update_material_group' (for group classification changes). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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