design_add_plant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that presets are species-accurate and parameterized, but says nothing about whether the layer is added to the current sketch, whether an open sketch is required, how iterations affect cost (schema hints 'slower' only), or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then discovery routing, then a fidelity note. The third sentence about branching angles and contraction ratios is partly promotional but does justify why presets beat manual shape building.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preset discovery but omits prerequisites (active sketch), return value (newly created layer reference), and failure modes (invalid preset ID). Adequate but with clear 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 100%, so every parameter (preset, seed, name, iterations) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only aggregate preset context (110 presets, 9 categories), not per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Add a plant layer to the sketch.' It also scopes the tool to preset-driven botanical layers, which separates it from the many generic layer/shape siblings (design_add_layer, design_add_shape) and from parametric growth siblings (design_grow_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?

Explicitly routes discovery to 'list_plant_presets or search_plants', so the agent knows not to guess a preset ID. However, it gives no exclusion guidance against adjacent tools like design_add_layer or design_grow_plant, leaving the agent to infer which one to reach for when a custom (non-preset) plant is wanted.

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