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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit by explaining the actual destructive action (a passed variety replaces the variety on an existing plant with the same name) and the catalog-creation side effect, which annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the riskier replacement behavior stated second. Nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the destructive variety behavior adequately. It is thin on the timing/method parameters and silent on choosing between the many planting-related siblings, leaving meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 56%, so the schema documents some params. The description adds real meaning for 'variety' (replacement semantics) and implies 'bed'/'garden', but leaves method, dates (sownAt/transplantedAt), quantity, and notes to the schema, only partially compensating for the gap.

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 ('record that the user planted/sowed something') and even describes the composite side effect of creating a catalog plant if new plus the planting in the named bed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like add_planned_planting or place_planting, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, despite several near-siblings (add_planned_planting, place_planting, update_planting). The agent gets no rule for choosing add_planting over a planned planting or a placement.

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