Compose a garden by placing multiple plant layers in one call, with each plant receiving a random position and seed plus an optional scale factor.
Compose a garden by adding multiple plant layers at once. Each plant gets a random position, seed, and optional scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plants | Yes | Array of plants to place. Each needs at minimum a preset ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does disclose a meaningful behavior: omitted coordinates and seeds are randomized and scale is optional. However, it is silent on what layers are actually produced, whether existing garden content is replaced or appended, and which sketch/context the creation applies to.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the per-plant default behavior second. No filler or 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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a very dense sibling namespace, the description omits what the tool returns (layer identifiers, created layer grouping) and how it interacts with existing garden/layer state. Adequate but leaves real 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% and the single nested 'plants' array documents each field, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the key defaults (random position/seed, optional scale) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
A specific verb and resource ('Compose a garden by adding multiple plant layers at once') makes the batch-creation nature clear, which implicitly separates it from the single-plant design_add_plant sibling. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.
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 phrase 'at once' implies this is the bulk alternative to single additions, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against design_add_plant or design_create_ecosystem, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.