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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real value beyond them: resources default to draft unless isPublished is set, files are capped at 10 MB, and the uploadTicket is one-time with an unmodified uploadResult. Auth requirements and rate limits are unaddressed, keeping this below 5.

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?

Front-loads the type distinctions before the flow/default details, then closes with the reference link and campaign targeting. It is a dense single paragraph with no redundancy, though the API reference URL and the closing targeting sentence are slightly less essential than the type constraints.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the type-specific constraints and default-publish behavior, but omits the prerequisite step of obtaining the upload ticket, which an agent calling the FILE branch would need.

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 50% over 10 params; the schema already documents url, text, uploadTicket, uploadResult, and campaignId with essentially the same wording the description repeats. The description does add the isPublished default semantics, but leaves title, category, and description unexplained, and its "campaignId if supplied, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID" claim sits awkwardly against a schema where campaignId is required.

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 ("Create") and resource ("a FILE, LINK, or TEXT resource for participants") and immediately distinguishes the three variants. An agent can tell this apart from growsurf_update_program_resource or growsurf_list_program_resources without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear per-type conditions (LINK requires an HTTPS url, TEXT requires text, FILE requires uploadTicket + uploadResult) and states the draft-vs-published behavior. It never names the sibling alternatives it interacts with, notably growsurf_prepare_program_resource_file for the FILE flow, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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