admin_set_seats

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral detail: if there is no active subscription, it returns a checkout link instead of updating, otherwise it updates immediately. This goes beyond a generic 'set' statement. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or the exact response format for the successful update case, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently conveys both the core function and the important conditional outcome without unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully cover what happens after the update (response shape) or any prerequisites/errors. It explains the checkout-link branch but leaves the 'updates immediately' branch return value unspecified. Given the simple parameter set, the description is adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema documents all three parameters fully (quantity range, seatType enum with extra meaning, billingPeriod enum). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high 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 a specific action ('Set number of subscription seats') and identifies the resource (subscription seats). It distinguishes from siblings like admin_get_seats (viewing) and admin_set_limits (different resource) by focusing on seat count. The conditional behavior also adds precision.

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 this tool is for changing subscription seat quantity, and it adds context by describing the two possible outcomes: returning a checkout link (no active subscription) or updating immediately. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over the many admin_* siblings.

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