Attach a dated field note, such as leaf curling or pest sightings, to a specific planting so you can track plant changes over time and support stress diagnostics.
Attach a dated observation (e.g. 'leaves curling') to a planting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Free-text field note | |
| observed_on | No | ||
| planting_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits that this is a write/append operation, whether records can be edited or removed afterwards, whether duplicates are allowed, and what the call returns. Only the word 'dated' hints at the temporal behavior of the record.
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 front-loaded sentence with a useful inline example and no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves real gaps that a second short clause could have filled.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: required planting_id semantics, observed_on format/default behavior, and the shape of the result are all unaddressed. An agent could call it, but not confidently.
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 only 33%: note is documented in the schema, but planting_id and observed_on are not. The description adds meaning by linking 'dated' to the observed_on parameter and illustrating note content with a field-note example, but it does not specify the date format or what happens when observed_on is omitted (default null).
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?
The description gives a specific verb-plus-resource: attaching a dated observation to a planting, reinforced by a concrete example ('leaves curling'). It is distinguishable in practice from list_observations or diagnose_planting, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is for free-text field notes versus a diagnosis (diagnose_planting) or when a planting should be referenced. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.