eduframe-mcp

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

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but adds no behavioral context beyond them. It fails to explain the idempotent nature, error handling for non-existent IDs, or that omitted fields preserve existing values.

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 brief (4 words), but verges on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. It lacks front-loaded key details that would help an agent quickly identify this as a partial update operation.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and presence of annotations, the description still falls short by failing to clarify the partial-update nature (name is optional) and not mentioning what constitutes success or the expected interaction pattern with the idempotentHint.

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 adequately documents both id and name parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline score for high-coverage 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 group' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it indicates the general action, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_material_group or update_material, and does not specify the scope of the update 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 provided on when to use this tool versus create_material_group, or prerequisites such as requiring an existing material group ID. No mention of partial update semantics despite the optional name parameter.

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