eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description lacks critical details: whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, side effects on related records, or required permissions for modifying affiliation status.

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 (5 words), which prevents redundancy, but it is too minimal to be genuinely useful. The single sentence does not earn its place effectively because it fails to convey any information beyond the tool name itself.

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 affecting organizational relationships, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the 'key_contact' concept, return values (though no output schema exists), error handling, and the business logic implications of updating an affiliation versus creating one.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'id' and 'key_contact' parameters. The main description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, warranting 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('organization affiliation record'), satisfying basic clarity. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_affiliation' or explain what constitutes an 'organization affiliation' 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus 'create_organization_affiliation', 'delete_organization_affiliation', or the sibling 'update_affiliation'. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria.

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