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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the write/irreversibility profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context the annotations do not: the implicit target-resolution rule (most-recent harvest when only a plant name is given) and the exact set of mutable fields.

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, front-loaded with the action and target resolution, then the intent trigger. The em-dash clause carries real information rather than padding, though the first sentence packs several ideas in one breath.

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?

With no output schema needed and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is editable, how the target is resolved, and when to reach for it. Edge cases (multiple matching plants, no prior harvest, permission requirements) are left unstated.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented — including the important lb/oz-stored-as-grams and garden-default notes. The description restates quantity, unit, notes, and date but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 precise verb and resource ("Correct a logged harvest") and defines the two targeting modes — latest harvest for a plant name, or a specific harvestId. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling record_harvest by the correction framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use when the user says a harvest they recorded was wrong" gives an explicit, actionable trigger condition that an agent can map to user intent. It stops short of naming alternatives (record_harvest for new entries, or deletion) or stating when this tool is the wrong choice.

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