seedfast_plan_create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the session-scoped storage behavior (no backend call), the return format ('a text block with the new plan ID, scope, and table list'), the auth requirement ('Does not require SEEDFAST_API_KEY'), and the mandatory minimum of one table entry. For a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is unusually complete.

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?

Four sentences with zero filler: purpose, return format, when-to-use condition, requirement, auth note, and next steps. The core purpose and scope constraint are front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, including the useful auth disclosure.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explicitly covers the return value, the invocation context, prerequisites (tables requirement), auth posture, and downstream workflow. For a 3-parameter create tool this is complete — an agent can select and call it correctly without opening any sibling schemas.

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 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter well (scope stored verbatim, tables as non-empty list, preview shown by seedfast_plan_get/plans_list). The description's 'At least one entry in tables is required' restates the schema's 'Non-empty list' constraint rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured data does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Stores a manually-crafted seeding plan in the current MCP session without calling the backend planner.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools: seedfast_run executes plans, seedfast_plan_update refines them, seedfast_plan_delete removes them. The 'without calling the backend planner' clause additionally separates it from planner-backed plan generation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the caller already knows exactly which tables to seed... and wants to skip the planner round-trip.' It names alternatives directly ('Next: call seedfast_run with planId to execute, or seedfast_plan_update to refine the plan') and gives a concrete caller scenario (derived from user prompt or previous run). The when-not case (caller doesn't know tables) is strongly implied by the stated precondition.

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