seedfast_plan_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers partial-overwrite semantics, empty-field preservation, the inability to clear fields, auth requirements, return confirmation details, and unknown-ID errors. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place: return/error behavior, update semantics, usage context, auth, and follow-up actions. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description includes return shape, error case, update semantics, auth, and suggested next steps. Given the rich schema and no output schema, nothing essential 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 already documents each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is solid. The description adds a unifying partial-update rule ('Only non-empty/non-zero fields...') and the no-clear limitation, which is meaningful additional context.

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 action ('Modifies an existing stored plan in place'), names the resource, and distinguishes itself from plan_create, plan_delete, and plan_get siblings. 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?

Explicitly positions the tool for adjusting a plan's tables or scope 'before executing with seedfast_run' and suggests verification via seedfast_plan_get. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions against plan_create or plan_delete, so it falls short of a full 5.

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