eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of disclosure but fails to explain mutation behavior, idempotency, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, or what the response structure contains. The description is silent on security implications noted in the schema (email field restrictions for admins).

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 only three words, the description is technically brief, but given the tool's complexity (12 parameters including nested address objects), this constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence must earn its place, and this provides insufficient value for the complexity.

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?

Inadequate for a complex mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema; omits critical context such as partial update semantics, the significance of the required ID parameter, and the handling of the with_authentication field which schema indicates is 'only relevant when creating' despite being in an update tool.

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 75% description coverage with documented fields including email, locale, address_attributes, and invoice_address_attributes. While the description adds no additional parameter guidance, 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 a user.' restates the tool name (update_user) without specifying what aspects of the user can be updated or distinguishing its scope from sibling tools like create_user or delete_webhook. While the verb and resource are clear, the tautological nature and lack of differentiation warrant a low score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_user, or prerequisites like requiring an existing user ID. The description fails to clarify whether this performs partial updates (PATCH) or full replacements (PUT).

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