remove_seed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'soft-delete' (not a permanent delete) and 'audit row retained' (preserves an audit trail), which are meaningful details beyond what the name suggests. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or effects on related data beyond the audit row, so it is not fully transparent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core action and its key behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Although the operation is conceptually simple, the tool has five parameters with only 40% schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain the purpose of the parameters, prerequisites, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 40% (two of five parameters have descriptions), and the tool description itself does not explain any parameters. It fails to clarify the required 'platform' and 'account' parameters or the optional 'removed_reason'. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, parameter semantics are weak.

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 ('soft-delete') and identifies the resource ('seed') with an explicit scope ('active'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_seed and list_seeds by focusing on deletion behavior.

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 phrase 'soft-delete an active seed' implies the appropriate context (when you want to remove a seed without permanently destroying it), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like hard deletion or other removal tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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