update_plant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the important partial-update behavior ('only passed items change') and implies the plant must already exist via '등록된 식물'. However, it does not describe error conditions, return behavior, or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps for a mutation 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?

The description consists of two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful, and the partial-update note is delivered efficiently without redundancy.

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 simple update tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior and the key nuance of partial updates. It doesn't need to explain return values since the output schema exists, and the sibling list provides context. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable at this complexity level.

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?

The schema itself has no descriptions for its four parameters, and the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explicitly mapping species, location, and water_every_days to their Korean terms, and the partial-update note clarifies how omitted parameters behave. However, the 'name' parameter's role as an identifier is only implicit.

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 ('수정한다' meaning 'modifies') and identifies the resource ('등록된 식물' meaning 'registered plant') along with the specific fields (species, location, watering interval). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_plant and remove_plant, and the partial-update note further clarifies its unique function.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for updating existing registered plants and that only passed fields are changed, which is a key usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the tool name and sibling list imply the distinction.

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