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 mention that this is a partial update (only 'id' is required), what happens to unspecified fields, idempotency characteristics, or any side effects. No mutation warnings or permission requirements are stated.

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 at only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex relationships (subject_type/subject_id), the description fails to front-load critical information or justify its brevity.

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 tool's complexity—9 parameters including relationships between subject_type and subject_id, partial update semantics, and no output schema—the description is entirely inadequate. It reveals nothing about parameter interactions, return values, or error conditions.

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, the baseline score applies. The schema comprehensively documents all 9 parameters including the subject_type enum and required id field. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the schema fully compensates.

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 task' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the resource (task) and action (update), it fails to distinguish from siblings like create_task or delete_task, and offers no scope clarification (e.g., partial vs full updates).

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 like create_task, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid task ID. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or workflow context.

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