design_grow_plant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that growth is driven by iteration count, but says nothing about prerequisites (an existing plant layer), whether changes are reversible, how step and targetIterations interact, or what the call affects on the plant's structure.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is barely adequate: it explains the concept of growth stepping but omits prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of step vs targetIterations, and any behavioral effects beyond the schema.

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 the schema already documents step (positive/negative), layerId, and targetIterations (1-10). The description adds only the general notion of iteration count and does not clarify the interaction between step and targetIterations, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: stepping the growth of an L-system plant by modulating its iteration count, which is more informative than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as design_advance_plant_growth and design_set_plant_growth, leaving the agent to guess which growth tool to pick.

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?

"Use to simulate growth from sapling to mature tree" implies a context but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools that also advance or set plant growth. It is implied usage only.

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