Landscape & garden design (Landscape AI)

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful cost disclosure ('Costs 1 credit'), but says nothing about turnaround, failure/refund behavior, or that a generated image is returned — notable given there is 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: the capability and its scoping constraint come first, and the cost is appended as a single clause. Nothing is redundant.

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 8-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but omits what is produced (image format/location of the result) and any mask-vs-image compatibility expectations. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent assembling a correct call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely ties 'climate' and 'sun exposure' to the city and sun_exposure parameters, but adds no format, sizing, or mask-matching constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 (design) and resource (garden, yard or outdoor area) scoped to a masked region of a photo, which separates it from luw_interior_design. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, luw_exterior_design, so the boundary there is left to inference.

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 description implies when the tool applies (outdoor areas, climate- and sun-aware planting) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus luw_exterior_design, luw_render or luw_edit_image, and no prerequisites beyond the implied image+mask pair.

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