eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context about partial updates (implied by single required 'id' field), error handling for non-existent IDs, or authentication requirements. It contributes nothing beyond the structured annotations.

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 four-word description is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It front-loads no useful constraints or scoping information, failing the 'every sentence should earn its place' standard for this complexity level.

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 an update operation with 5 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), does not clarify the idempotent behavior declared in annotations, and provides no guidance on the optional nature of most fields.

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 80%, with all top-level fields except address_attributes having descriptions. Per guidelines, high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter semantics (e.g., explaining the relationship between course_location_id and the meeting location, or address_attributes structure), but the schema adequately documents individual fields.

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 meeting location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. While it identifies the verb (update) and resource (meeting location), it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like create_meeting_location or delete_meeting_location.

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 like create_meeting_location, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the location must exist). The description offers no contextual signals for proper tool selection.

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