design_set_plant_wind

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 usefully discloses the visual effect (branch bending, gusts, Perlin-noise turbulence) and that it works with all plant layer types, but says nothing about mutation semantics: whether existing wind settings are replaced, whether it requires an existing plant layer, or whether changes are reversible. Defaults are left to the schema.

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 and followed by a scope note and a workflow tip. Minor waste in the mid-sentence elaboration, but nothing that could be cut without losing 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is affected and one integration tip, but omits prerequisites (layer must hold a plant), return behavior, and whether configuration is idempotent. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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% with per-parameter ranges, defaults, and unit conventions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond pointing at one parameter, and worse, calls it 'windTime' while the actual parameter is 'time', which could send an agent looking for a field that does not exist.

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 ('Configure wind dynamics on a plant layer') and immediately clarifies what that means physically ('Wind bends branches in a direction with optional gusts and spatial turbulence'), which distinguishes it from siblings like design_set_plant_tropism or design_set_plant_grammar. It does not name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

One concrete workflow hint is given ('Use windTime with capture_screenshot for animation frames'), which points at an animation use case. However, there are no exclusions (e.g., must the layer already contain a grown plant?) and no named alternatives, and the hint references a parameter name (windTime) that does not exist in the schema.

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