design_advance_plant_growth

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the intended repeated-invocation pattern, but says nothing about mutation side effects, reversibility, whether the layer must already be a plant layer, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the practical workflow tip. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 small three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and workflow adequately. It is incomplete on mutation semantics and preconditions, which matter more here because no annotations exist to cover them.

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 all three parameters (step, layerId, targetTime) are already documented, including negative-step reversal. The description only restates the stepping concept and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the 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: advancing a plant layer's growth time by a step amount. An agent can distinguish it from design_set_plant_growth and design_grow_plant by the stepping semantics, but the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: build growth animation frames by calling repeatedly with capture_screenshot between steps. That is a clear workflow signal. It lacks any exclusion guidance, such as when to prefer design_set_plant_growth or design_grow_plant instead.

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