design_export_plant_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the output shape (JSON array of path objects) and how geometry is mapped into two path categories. It does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, whether it mutates the sketch or preset, or what happens on an unknown preset ID — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and format first, then the geometry-mapping rule, then the return type. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends a sentence describing the return value, and it explains the segment/region path split, which is essential for consuming the output. It stops short of explaining how presets are discovered (design_list_plant_presets) or error behavior, but is otherwise sufficient for a 6-param export tool.

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 seed, azimuth, elevation, growthTime, and iterations are all documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (export) on a specific resource (a plant preset) and names the exact output contract (ADR 072 AlgorithmStrokePath[]) plus the downstream consumer (plugin-painting brush layers). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like design_grow_plant, design_list_plant_presets, or design_export_gif.

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 stated consumer (plugin-painting brush layers) implies a usage context, so an agent can infer this is for handing plant geometry to brush painting rather than for rendering or editing. However, it never says when to prefer this over growing/exporting via other tools, nor any prerequisites such as whether the preset must already be added to the sketch.

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