team_seed_update

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about state transitions, side effects, reversibility of promote/submit, permissions, or failure modes. Only the payload shape per action is disclosed; an agent cannot predict what happens to the Seed when it is advanced.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The telegraphic brace notation ("{result,brief,conclusion?}") is dense and requires parsing, but it is compact rather than padded.

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 five-action state-machine mutation with a free-form nested `input` object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it does not explain what each action transitions the Seed to, what the caller gets back, or what happens on a wrong-shape input.

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 33% (only `id` is documented), so the description does useful work by mapping input shapes to actions: {body} for ask/answer, {result,brief,conclusion?} for submit, {title?,detail?} for promote. However, the semantics of the `action` enum values themselves are never explained, and which shape belongs to which specific action is left for the agent to deduce.

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?

"Advance a Seed" gives a specific verb plus the domain resource, and the five action names (claim, ask, answer, submit, promote) scope it further. It is distinguishable from team_seed_list / team_seed_get, though it never says what a "Seed" actually is or what any individual action does.

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 action names imply a workflow progression, and "omit it for claim" is an explicit conditional, but the definition never says when to pick claim vs ask vs submit, nor when to use this instead of sibling tools like lane_submit, team_question, or team_seed_get. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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