eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not specify whether this performs partial or full updates (though the schema requires both parameters, suggesting full replacement), does not describe side effects on existing teacher associations, and does not indicate the return value or error conditions.

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?

The description is extremely brief (4 words) without wasted language, but it is underspecified rather than elegantly concise. It lacks the necessary detail to earn a higher score despite 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?

For a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the nature of teacher roles, behavioral constraints, and return value information that would be necessary for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage ('ID of the teacher role to update' and 'The name of the teacher role'), so the structured data sufficiently explains the parameters. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage 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 teacher role' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to define what constitutes a 'teacher role' (e.g., job title, permission set, or classification) and does not differentiate from siblings like create_teacher_role or delete_teacher_role beyond the implicit verb.

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., create_teacher_role for new roles), nor any prerequisites such as role existence verification or required permissions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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