Add a new education entry to a portfolio profile, including institution, degree, dates, and optional details, to keep academic history current.
Create a new education entry. Requires write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grade | No | ||
| degree | No | ||
| end_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| body_html | No | ||
| skill_ids | No | ||
| is_current | No | ||
| start_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| description | No | ||
| institution | Yes | Institution name | |
| project_ids | No | ||
| field_of_study | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that write permission is required, which is a minimal permission note. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, what is returned, or any constraints on the data. This is insufficient for a create operation with multiple fields.
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 a single sentence and therefore is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it omits crucial operational details. There is no redundancy or filler, but the brevity works against the tool's 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?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an education entry consists of, how fields like 'skill_ids' or 'project_ids' relate, or what the API returns. This is drastically inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the 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?
Schema coverage is only 27% (only 3 out of 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no parameter-level information whatsoever—not even highlighting the required 'institution' field. This leaves the agent to guess semantics from parameter names alone, which is especially problematic for ambiguous fields like 'body_html' or 'skill_ids'.
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 clearly states 'Create a new education entry', which specifies the action (create) and the resource (education entry). This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from update/delete/get variants among the siblings. However, it lacks context such as being tied to a user profile, which would make the purpose even more explicit.
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 update_education or get_education. Mentioning 'Requires write permission' states a prerequisite but does not explain the use case. There is no explicit directive such as 'Use to add a new education record' or comparison with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.