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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried. The description adds the status vocabulary and id sourcing, but given destructiveHint=true it never explains what an update overwrites or that re-status changes may be lossy. Useful but not rich on top of the 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?

Two tight sentences: the capability list is front-loaded and the when-to-use triggers follow. No redundant padding, though the field list slightly duplicates the schema.

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 6-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the id source, the primary status flows, and the reschedulable fields. Minor gaps remain around the garden default and the consequences of status changes, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly 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 50%, so the description should compensate. It names status, targetDate, quantity and notes, but the status values it lists are already in the schema enum and targetDate format is already documented. It adds nothing for the undocumented 'garden' or 'notes' parameters, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 and resource ('Update a queued succession-plan entry') and enumerates the mutable fields (status, targetDate, quantity, notes). It implicitly separates itself from add_planned_planting/delete_planned_planting by framing this as modifying an existing id-sourced entry, though it never names those siblings 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: marking status 'done' when the user sows, 'skipped' when they decide to skip, or rescheduling/adjusting. It also tells the agent where the id comes from (list_planned_plantings). No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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