design_set_plant_growth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that growthTime interpolates continuously (0=seed, 1=maturity) and that elevation/azimuth switch on 3D turtle projection for volumetric canopies, which is real behavioral context. It omits prerequisites (must a plant already exist on the layer), whether prior growth state is overwritten, and any side effects, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key numeric semantics and then the 3D projection consequence. No filler, though the second and third sentences duplicate schema documentation rather than adding new information.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two headline concerns (growth interpolation and camera angles) but omits growthCurve entirely, says nothing about return behavior or error conditions, and does not state layer/plant prerequisites. Adequate but with clear 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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the 0/1 growthTime range, the 'enables 3D turtle' notes on elevation/azimuth, and the growthCurve enum meanings. The description largely restates the schema's growthTime and elevation/azimuth text and never mentions growthCurve, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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: set continuous growth time and 3D camera angle on a plant layer. An agent can tell this is a direct state-setting operation on a plant layer. It does not, however, name the closely related siblings (design_advance_plant_growth, design_grow_plant), so the boundary is left implicit.

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 'smooth interpolation, not discrete steps' implicitly signals this sets an exact growth value rather than stepping growth forward, which distinguishes it in spirit from design_advance_plant_growth. But no when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, and the camera-angle purpose is not tied to any scenario (e.g. versus design_set_camera).

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