add_plant_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Log...' without mentioning side effects, such as automatically updating plant attribute dates when action is 'watered', 'fertilized', or 'repotted'. It also does not describe the outcome or return value, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the main action is immediately clear.

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 simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, because there is no annotation coverage, the description should have mentioned the automatic date-update side effect and what happens after logging, which it does not.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the 'action' enum by listing watering, repotting, fertilization, and observation notes, but it does not add meaningful new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Log') and resource ('plant log') and lists the supported care categories (watering, repotting, fertilization, observation). It makes the tool's primary function obvious and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_plant_history, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 implied: an agent should use this when a user reports a care action or observation in conversation. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, so the agent must infer the decision boundary from the description alone.

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