add_seed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions constraints like 'Active only' and a cap, but these are vague and do not explain side effects, permissions, reversibility, return values, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with a clear verb. It communicates the core purpose and two key constraints efficiently. However, the phrase 'Active only' is ambiguous and could be more explicit, slightly reducing structural clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain authentication, return behavior, error cases, or what happens when the cap is reached. The description alone is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description only re-lists three of the required parameters (platform, handle, basis_statement) without adding new semantic details, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a seed account' with specific components (platform + handle + basis_statement). It also includes constraints ('Active only', 'Cap: MAX_SEED_ACCOUNTS') that further specify scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_seeds and remove_seed.

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 implies when the tool is used (adding seed accounts) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Cap: MAX_SEED_ACCOUNTS' line hints at a limiting condition, but the guidance is minimal and not fully explicit.

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