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 but provides none. It omits mutation semantics (idempotency, side effects), error handling for invalid IDs, and the significance of nested operations like course_tab_contents_attributes which modifies child resources.

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, three words is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects. The sentence fails to earn its place by providing actionable context for the complexity involved.

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?

Completely inadequate for a complex mutation tool with 11 parameters including nested arrays (course_tab_contents_attributes) and schemaless objects (custom). No output schema or annotations exist to compensate for the description's failure to explain partial update behavior, validation rules, or return values.

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 coverage is 73%, documenting standard fields like cost_scheme and is_published. The description adds no parameter context, but the schema adequately covers most fields including the enum values for cost_scheme. However, it doesn't clarify the open-ended custom/custom_associations objects or the nested update behavior.

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 program' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what constitutes a 'program' in this domain or distinguishing from siblings like create_program, delete_program, or update_program_edition. It fails to clarify the scope of updatable fields.

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., update_program_edition for editions vs programs), prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the program ID first), or whether partial updates are supported versus requiring all fields.

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