design_suggest_plant_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape ('ranked', 'with reasons') which is helpful since there is no output schema, and 'suggest/get' implies a read. However it never states that it does not modify the plant, nor how many styles are returned or whether results are deterministic.

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 action and scope, no filler. It could have used one clause to name the sibling it replaces rather than spending nothing on it, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level but omits result count, ordering guarantees, and how preset IDs are discovered. Adequate to call correctly, not complete.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds only that the recommendation is keyed by 'species/category', without naming the preset vocabulary or pointing to design_list_plant_presets for valid IDs.

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: 'Get ranked drawing style recommendations for a plant preset', plus what comes back ('top styles with reasons'). It is distinguishable from design_set_plant_style only by inference (recommend vs. apply), not by explicit contrast.

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?

'for a plant preset' implies it is a lookup step for a chosen preset, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any mention of the obvious alternatives (design_set_plant_style, design_suggest_style, design_search_styles). The agent must infer the routing from names alone.

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