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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true but give no detail. The description adds the crucial consequence: moving a bed clears any layout position, history stays attached, and you must re-place with place_planting. That's exactly the behavioral context annotations can't convey.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the status/field mutations and then the move behavior. It's information-rich and not padded, though the parenthetical is slightly long; still, every clause adds actionable detail.

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 9-param mutation tool with no output schema and destructiveHint, it covers the critical side effects and identification paths. It could mention that 0 required params means at least one must be supplied, and doesn't state return shape, but the destructive move semantics are well covered.

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%, and the description compensates for the gaps: it maps status to its enum values, explains that bed takes the target bed's name, describes how to identify the planting (plant name or plantingId), and clarifies that variety is stored on the plant. It doesn't explain garden defaulting or the transplant date purpose beyond what the schema already says.

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 (update) and resource (planting), and enumerates exactly which fields can change. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools and from place_planting by noting the move-to-bed behavior and the need to re-place layout after.

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 context for moving beds and explicitly names place_planting as the follow-up alternative for re-positioning. It doesn't cover when to choose update_planting over update_planned_planting, but the active/finished/failed status framing implies it's for existing real plantings.

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