Records a planting in the garden log with plant name, coordinates, variety, date, and notes, then returns the stored row for tracking.
Record a planting in the garden log and return the stored row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| variety | No | ||
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees | |
| plant_name | Yes | Common name, e.g. 'tomato' | |
| planted_on | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only adds that the stored row is returned. Nothing is said about persistence guarantees, required permissions, duplicate handling, validation failures, or whether new species entries are created — all material for a write tool.
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 zero filler; the action and the return behavior are stated immediately. Nothing in it 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 a six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it neither explains the side effects on the garden log nor covers the half of the schema that lacks field descriptions. The only return-value hint ('stored row') is helpful but insufficient on its own.
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?
Six parameters at 50% schema description coverage leaves notes, variety, and planted_on documented only by their titles and defaults. The description adds no meaning about required coordinates, date formatting, or how optional fields are stored, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Record a planting') plus a destination ('garden log'), which is clearly distinct from log_observation and list_plantings. However, it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as log_observation or diagnose_planting. An agent must guess whether recording a planting is the right action versus logging an observation or diagnosing an existing planting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.