design_set_plant_style

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains what each style looks like visually (clean vectors, gestural, filled outline), which is real behavioral context. It omits, however, whether the change is reversible, whether it overwrites existing per-plant settings, or what happens to non-plant content on the layer.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact enumeration of the allowed values. No filler; the enumeration earns its place given the terse schema enum descriptions.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus a fully-described schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it. Missing only the when-to-use framing and reversibility, which are minor for a style setter.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description still adds value beyond it by glossing every enum value ('precise (clean vectors)', 'silhouette (filled outline)'), which the schema only labels as 'Drawing style.' and 'Detail level.' The numeric tuning params are left to the schema, appropriately.

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: setting drawing style and detail level on a plant layer. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like design_set_plant_grammar or design_set_plant_growth. It does not, however, contrast itself with design_suggest_plant_style, which reads as a near-neighbor.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is the setter counterpart to design_suggest_plant_style, but the description never says when to use one over the other, nor whether the layer must already contain plants.

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