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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is really an archive, that the planting vanishes from the app and from these tools, that care schedules stop, that harvests/events/photos are retained, and that there is no in-app restore path. Those are exactly the consequences an agent needs before committing to a destructiveHint=true operation, and none of them are recoverable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the surprising archive semantics. Every clause carries information — scope, persistence, irreversibility, identification, trigger — with no filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences and identification well. The remaining gap is failure/ambiguity handling — what happens when a plant name matches multiple plantings or nothing, given that no parameter is required.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the lookup choice ('Identify by plant name or plantingId') but adds no syntax, precedence, or conflict-resolution rules for when both plant and plantingId are supplied, or for the zero-required-parameter case.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Remove a planting') and the second immediately reframes it as an archive, which is more precise than the tool name suggests. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the similarly-named sibling delete_planned_planting, which is a real ambiguity risk given the sibling list.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Use when the user says to delete/remove a planting (e.g. one added by mistake).' It also states how to identify the target (plant name or plantingId). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent facing 'delete my planned tomato' still has to guess between this and delete_planned_planting.

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