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 fails to clarify critical behavioral traits: whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared (PATCH vs PUT semantics), potential side effects on related enrollments, or idempotency guarantees. For an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, this is insufficient.

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?

At four words, the description is concise but suffers from under-specification rather than efficient information density. The single sentence does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name. It lacks front-loading of critical behavioral context needed for a complex update operation with nested objects.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It omits critical context: the partial update nature (only 'id' is required), the relationship to program editions vs programs, and the implications of updating fields like is_published or cost_scheme on existing enrollments.

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 82% schema description coverage, the input schema effectively documents most parameters (name, dates, cost, participants, etc.). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, but given the high coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description does not compensate for the 'custom' and 'custom_associations' object parameters which lack detailed 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 'Update a program edition' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name (update_program_edition) with minor grammatical changes. While it confirms the operation type and resource, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like create_program_edition or delete_program_edition, and provides no insight into what constitutes a 'program edition' 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_program_edition or get_program_edition. It does not mention prerequisites, partial update semantics (implied by 10 optional parameters), or whether this requires specific permissions or states (e.g., unpublished editions only).

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