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. It fails to indicate whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, whether the operation is reversible, if it triggers side effects (e.g., notifications to enrolled students), or required permissions. Only the word 'Update' hints at mutation.

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 the three-word description is brief, it is inappropriately sized for a mutation tool with multiple relational parameters (edition_id, planned_course_id). The extreme brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient information density; no sentences 'earn their place' with valuable context.

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 mutation tool affecting program structures. Given the complexity of the sibling tool ecosystem (90+ tools including program edition management), the description provides no domain context, no output expectations, no error conditions, and no relationship explanation between program elements, editions, and planned courses.

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 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (id, edition_id, planned_course_id) are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax guidance, or examples, but the high schema coverage establishes a baseline score of 3.

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 an element' is a tautology that restates the tool name while stripping the 'program' context, making it more ambiguous. It fails to specify what a program element represents (e.g., a course component, module, or curriculum item) and does not distinguish this update operation from siblings like create_program_element or delete_program_element.

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 such as create_program_element, or prerequisites for updating (e.g., whether the element must exist, be in a draft state, etc.). The description offers zero usage context.

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