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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context. It restates that dimensions are optional and that type gates the bed kind, but says nothing about what happens on duplicate names, garden resolution failures, or permissions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the enum semantics and optionality note. No filler or repetition.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the required discriminator's meaning, and optionality of dimensions, while annotations carry the safety profile and the schema documents the garden default. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 67%, with `name` and `type` undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the semantic meaning of the `type` enum (outdoor_bed = in-ground, etc.) and confirming the dimension fields are optional, which is genuinely additive detail beyond the raw enum list.

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+resource ('Add a garden bed') and enumerates the valid bed types, making the created resource concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_bed or list_beds, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context: 'Use when the user wants a new bed or planting area.' There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer add_planting or place_planting instead), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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