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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful extra context: the reward is deactivated, dropped from the reward set, and connected upfront-discount coupons are cascaded-cleaned. That cascade is a non-obvious side effect an agent needs before calling.

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 action and its side effects, then parameter and return notes. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema already covering the { id, success } return and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: cascading cleanup behavior and the campaign target resolution rule.

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?

campaignRewardId has no schema description, and the text compensates by identifying it as the reward key. campaignId's fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID is repeated from the schema, and the phrasing 'if you pass it' implies optionality while the schema marks it required, a minor ambiguity.

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 (delete) and resource (campaign reward / reward config) plus the program scope. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like growsurf_update_campaign_reward and growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook 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?

The description never explicitly says when to delete vs. update or deactivate a reward, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied by the verb and the campaignId targeting note, which is enough to function but leaves the alternatives to inference.

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