seed_create_frame

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 mentions the tool is a create operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or what the response contains. Given that this is a mutation tool with no output schema, more behavioral context is expected.

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: the first states the action clearly, the second provides essential context about what a frame is. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information is front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with 9 parameters and a rich schema, the description is sufficient to understand the high-level purpose and workflow, especially with the 'before creating views' context. However, it does not mention the return value or error behavior, which is a gap given no output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a create operation with a well-documented schema.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a conceptual overview ('fields/relations and optional filters') that maps to the parameters, but does not provide new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters comprehensively, the description adds marginal value.

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 action: 'Create a Seed frame on an existing table.' It also explains the purpose of frames ('select table fields/relations and optional filters before creating views'), which distinguishes it from sibling frame tools like seed_get_frame or seed_update_frame. The verb 'create' plus the resource 'frame' is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: frames are created on existing tables and serve as a precursor to creating views. This implies when to use this tool (after table creation, before view creation). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The workflow hint is useful, but exclusions are missing.

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