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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds attachment behavior (where the record lands), but says nothing about retry duplication risk, whether logged events can later be edited, or permission requirements. Adequate given annotation coverage, not rich.

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, no filler, and the enumeration of event types is front-loaded before the attachment mechanics. Every clause carries information the agent needs either to select the tool or to populate it.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, required type, attachment targets, and precedence; remaining per-type parameters (amount, product, pestName, severity) are already documented in the schema. Only the absence of post-write behavior (duplicate risk, retrievability) is a small gap.

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 82%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a precedence rule the schema does not state: if both plant and bed are given, the event attaches to the plant's planting. It also clarifies the plant target as the 'active planting', which sharpens ambiguity in a multi-planting model.

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 concrete verb (record) and enumerates the resource domain precisely ('watered, fertilized, transplanted, pruned, pest sighting, treatment, frost damage, or a note'), which maps directly to the type enum. An agent can distinguish this from sibling writers like record_harvest or log_curing without opening a schema.

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 clear routing guidance: attach to a plant's active planting via `plant`, to a bed via `bed`, or garden-wide with neither, plus the tie-break rule when both are supplied. It doesn't name an alternative sibling for overlapping cases (e.g. harvesting), but the scoping context is explicit.

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