add_plant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It supplements the schema by explaining that water_every_days is the watering interval in days, and that using the default is acceptable when unsure, with a later correction path. This goes beyond the raw schema and is useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides a helpful parameter tip. No wasted words, clear and efficient.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, but the description only sheds light on one parameter. It covers the core purpose and the default behavior for water_every_days, but leaves other parameters, return values, and error handling undocumented. Given the simplicity of a create operation and the existence of an output schema, this is partially complete but with notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only explains water_every_days, leaving name, species, location, and acquired_on without additional semantic meaning beyond their names. The watering interval guidance is helpful, but most parameters are not elaborated.

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 clearly states the action: 'Registers a new plant' (새 식물을 등록한다). The verb 'register' and resource 'plant' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like remove_plant, update_plant, and get_plant.

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 provides practical usage guidance for the water_every_days parameter: if unknown, use the default 7 and adjust later with update_plant. This explicitly names an alternative tool for adjustments, though it doesn't broadly discuss when to use this tool versus other plant-related tools.

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