seedfast_plan_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it declares permanence, irrecoverability, return behavior, error conditions, independence from seeding runs, and that no API key is required. This is exemplary disclosure for a destructive tool.

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?

Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return/error behavior, destructiveness, run-cancel distinction, usage condition, auth requirement, and a verification next step. It is slightly long but tightly structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome, failure modes, side-effect non-impact, authentication context, and a post-call verification step. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 describes planId as 'Plan ID to delete' with 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds the error case for an unknown ID, but provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('removes') and a specific resource ('stored plan from the current MCP session'), clearly distinguishing this from canceling a run. It also states the outcome, errors, and irreversibility, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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 description gives an explicit condition for use ('Use only when the user explicitly wants to discard a plan') and explicitly excludes a related behavior ('does NOT cancel or affect any seeding run'). It stops short of naming the alternative cancel-run tool, but the guidance is still clear and actionable.

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