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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds the dismiss-vs-cured duality and the reminder concept. But it doesn't disclose what a dismissal does, whether the reminder is removed, or what permissions/state is required — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage triggers. Zero 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?

Adequate for a small 3-param mutation tool, but with no output schema and only 67% parameter coverage, the definition leaves the dismiss behavior and the relationship to sibling logging tools underspecified. Enough to call correctly, but not fully complete.

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%, which is moderate. The description implies the cured/dismissed distinction (kind) via its two stated use modes, but adds no detail on garden or plantingId semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline for partial coverage with no extra description detail is 3.

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 states a clear verb+resource: recording that a crop finished curing, with a parenthetical for the dismiss variant. It distinguishes the tool's purpose but does not differentiate it from siblings like record_harvest or log_event, which also record crop lifecycle events.

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 second sentence gives explicit natural-language trigger phrases ('cured', 'dried', 'trimmed', 'stored') and example crops, which tells the agent when to invoke it from user speech. However, it does not explain when to prefer log_event or record_harvest, leaving ambiguity among closely related recording tools.

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