eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it fails to specify whether unspecified fields are preserved (PATCH) or reset (PUT), nor does it mention idempotency, validation rules, or side effects like webhook deactivation/reactivation.

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 3 words, the description is brief, but this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing zero information beyond what is already obvious from the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain operational semantics (partial updates, field persistence) and expected outcomes. Currently, it provides insufficient context for safe invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (id, url, active, events). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 webhook.' is tautological, merely restating the tool name without elaborating on the specific update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement). It does not differentiate from sibling webhook operations like create_webhook or delete_webhook.

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 create_webhook (for new webhooks) or delete_webhook (for removal). No mention of prerequisites such as requiring a valid webhook ID or whether all fields must be provided.

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