Update fit scores and research notes for a university program without altering verification status.
Patch fit scores and optional research notes. Does not change verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes | ||
| backend_fit | No | ||
| overall_fit | No | ||
| uncertainties | No | ||
| curriculum_summary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Patch' correctly implies partial-update semantics and the verification-status exclusion is a genuine behavioral boundary, but there is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or what happens to fields omitted or passed as null — a real concern given every optional field defaults to null.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the scoping exclusion. Every clause contributes.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the patch/null semantics and permission requirements unstated, which is a meaningful shortfall.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply param meaning; it does so only at the group level, mapping 'fit scores' to backend_fit/overall_fit and 'research notes' to uncertainties/curriculum_summary. It adds nothing about valid ranges for the integer scores or the null/nullable semantics, which is the most actionable gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('patch fit scores and optional research notes') and explicitly carves out an adjacent behavior ('Does not change verification status'), which distinguishes it from the mark_program_verified sibling. It never names the target entity explicitly, but program_id and the sibling set make it inferable.
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 negative clause 'Does not change verification status' implies routing to mark_program_verified rather than this tool, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no positive when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no explicit naming of the alternative, so usage is only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.