build_designer_linkA link that opens our free 3D garden planner with the given plants already in the plant list, so the person can plan a layout or send the list to our designer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plants | Yes | 1–20 plants, by slug or name, to put in the 3D garden planner's plant list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / plants / descriptionPrevious value: -"1–20 plants, by slug or name, to put in the designer's plant list."New value: +"1–20 plants, by slug or name, to put in the 3D garden planner's plant list."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a shareable link whose state is a pre-populated plant list, which is useful context, but says nothing about link lifetime, whether it is shareable externally, or any auth/limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool produces, with a purpose clause that earns its place by explaining the payoff. No filler or repetition of the name, though the sentence is slightly long for the amount of new information it carries.
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 single-parameter, non-destructive link builder with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the deliverable (a link) and its behavior. Minor gaps remain around link persistence and whether the link is meant for the agent's user or the designer, but nothing critical to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'plants' parameter is already documented as 1-20 items by slug or name. The description restates that the plants land in the planner's plant list but adds no format, slug-resolution, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific artifact and its effect: a link that opens the 3D garden planner with the supplied plants preloaded. That is far more concrete than the tool name alone, and no sibling (all content/guide readers) overlaps with it. It stops short of explicitly positioning itself against any sibling, so it lands just under the top mark.
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: 'so the person can plan a layout or send the list to our designer' hints at the two downstream scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many garden-info siblings. An agent can infer intent but is not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.