set_seed_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine trait — the operation is reversible/non-destructive relative to deletion — but omits permissions, whether disabled seeds are excluded from search, and whether the change persists immediately.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema only, the description is too thin. It leaves side effects, permissions, and the meaning of the enabled default undocumented.

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% for two parameters, and the description adds nothing about them beyond the word 'enable/disable' loosely implying the boolean flag. It never explains seed_id, nor the default enabled=true behavior.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (seed), so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from remove_seed via the 'without deleting it' clause, but does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 'without deleting it' phrase implies this is the soft-toggle alternative to remove_seed, so usage is inferable but never stated as explicit when/when-not guidance. No mention of prerequisites or conditions under which a disabled seed should be preferred.

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