seed_starter_pack

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: it will not override links that research has already recorded, which signals merge/preserve semantics. It omits other useful traits such as idempotency, what happens on partial overlap, and how many entities a pack inserts.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the protective-clause follows immediately with no filler. Effectively sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter is fully documented, so the description only needs to convey intent and the non-destructive guarantee, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'pack' parameter already enumerates the five valid values in its schema description. The prose adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Add a curated starter pack of companies and supplier/competitor links.' This tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or differentiate from siblings (onboard, upsert_entity, complete_mapping), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the seeding/bootstrap framing; there is no explicit 'use when X, not when Y' and no named alternative such as onboard or upsert_entity for adding entities. The one explicit condition ('Never overrides links research recorded') is behavioral rather than a selection guideline.

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