eduframe-mcp

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens to existing data if only specific fields are provided, or whether the update is partial or full.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundant words. However, its extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient information density; it wastes the opportunity to provide crucial context in the same space.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what aspects of an option can be modified (e.g., 'value' and 'enabled' status), what the 'id' parameter refers to specifically, or how this operation relates to the broader custom field lifecycle.

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 80% schema description coverage (4 of 5 parameters documented), the baseline score applies. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., it does not clarify the confusing schema descriptions where both 'object_type' and 'field_slug' are labeled as 'ID of the parent resource', nor explain what 'value' represents).

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 states the basic purpose (updating an option of a custom field) with a clear verb and resource, but it is extremely minimal and does not differentiate from siblings like 'add_option_to_custom_field' or 'delete_option_of_custom_field'. It borders on tautology by nearly restating the tool name.

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 (e.g., when to update an existing option vs. adding a new one with 'add_option_to_custom_field'). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to identify the custom field via 'object_type' and 'field_slug' first.

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