seo_add_seeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the seeds are appended to existing seeds or replace them, what happens on validation failure (e.g., fewer than 3 or more than 10), or whether the operation is idempotent. The flow context is useful but does not disclose side effects or safeguards.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the step role, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy with the schema and provides only high-value flow and constraint information.

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 simple add operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the tool's position in the flow, specifies the count range, and indicates the relationship to the next tool. It does not explain potential failure modes or the exact persistence behavior, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (seeds and brandId), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints ('3–10 seed keywords') and clarifies the semantic purpose ('describe what the brand wants to rank for'), going beyond the schema's basic type and minItems. This earns a 4.

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 the tool's action ('Add 3–10 seed keywords'), the resource (seed keywords), and its role as 'Step 1 of the SEO / GEO flow.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool seo_generate_keywords by explicitly explaining that the next step expands these seeds.

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 explicitly identifies when this tool should be used ('Step 1 of the SEO / GEO flow') and provides a clear pointer to the next step ('After this, call seo_generate_keywords'). However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools that might be chosen instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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