Add a random plant layer to generative art scenes, with optional constraints by plant category or engine type for controlled variation.
Add a random plant layer. Optionally constrain by category or engine type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Constrain to a specific engine. | |
| category | No | Constrain to a specific category. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutating action (adding a layer) and randomization, but says nothing about which sketch/layer set is affected, whether the result is seeded or re-rollable, whether repeated calls stack layers, or how to undo. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: an action statement followed by the constraint options. Nothing is redundant.
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?
The tool is low complexity with two optional enum params and no output schema, so it doesn't need much. Still, for a mutation in a crowded plant/sibling namespace, the absence of prerequisites, sibling differentiation, and post-call state info leaves it only minimally adequate.
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 both parameters are documented enums, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the two constraint axes (category, engine type) without adding format, default, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.
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 random plant layer') and signals a randomized variant rather than a preset-driven one. However, it never distinguishes itself explicitly from the sibling design_add_plant or design_search_plants, so an agent must infer the difference from the word 'random'.
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 sentence 'Optionally constrain by category or engine type' describes parameter usage, not tool selection. There is no indication of when to choose this over design_add_plant, design_create_garden, or design_randomize_particles, nor any prerequisites such as needing an open sketch or an existing plant layer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.