eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'Update' but fails to specify that this is a partial update (only 'id' is required), omits the fixed versus flexible course type distinction evident in the schema, and provides no information about side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

While brief (3 words), it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence fails to front-load critical information about the tool's scope or behavior, wasting the opportunity to clarify the complex 15-parameter 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?

Grossly inadequate for a complex tool with 15 parameters, nested objects (custom, custom_associations), and conditional logic (fixed vs. flexible courses indicated by start_date vs. duration fields). No output schema exists, yet the description provides no indication of return values or operation outcomes.

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 87% (high), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents fields like cost_scheme enums and date requirements without additional narrative support.

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 planned course' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb (Update) and resource (planned course), it fails to define what constitutes a 'planned course' or distinguish this tool from siblings like create_planned_course or cancel_planned_course.

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 (e.g., cancel_planned_course for cancellations), prerequisites for use (e.g., needing the planned course ID), or whether this performs partial updates versus full replacements.

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