edstem-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what endorsement entails (e.g., visibility changes, notifications generated, idempotency), nor does it mention that the action is reversible via 'unendorse_thread' despite this being critical context.

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 concise (three words) and front-loaded with the verb. While it avoids verbosity, it is underweight for the tool's complexity—omitting behavioral and contextual details that are necessary for safe invocation.

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?

Given this is a staff-privileged mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks necessary context about side effects, reversibility, and the relationship to sibling endorsement tools. It meets the bare minimum identification but leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the 'thread_id' parameter as 'Global thread ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric 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 states the verb (Endorse) and resource (thread), and the parenthetical '(staff)' hints at privilege requirements. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'endorse_comment', 'star_thread', or 'accept_answer', leaving ambiguity about what specific 'endorsement' means in this context.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unendorse_thread' or 'star_thread'. The '(staff)' notation implies restricted access but does not clarify prerequisites, authorization requirements, or workflow context.

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