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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description earns credit by explaining what is actually destroyed: setting status=COMPLETE ends the program while IN_PROGRESS publishes/resumes it. It also discloses PATCH-style semantics ('only the fields you send are changed') and the targeting fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, none of which the annotations convey.

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 opening clause leads with the action and field list, followed by constraints and routing in descending priority. It is dense with parentheticals but each sentence carries distinct information; only the currency note slightly over-explains an immutable field that is not a parameter at all.

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 tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full annotation coverage, the description covers targeting, partial update, lifecycle side effects, and sibling routing. The one omission is that it never states at least one of the four fields must be supplied, despite the schema's anyOf requirement.

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 only 40%, so the description must carry weight: it names the four mutable fields, clarifies partial-update behavior, and explains why type/urlId/currencyISO are absent. However, the status enum's meaning and the campaignId default are already spelled out in the schema descriptions, so the description mostly repeats rather than extends the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update your GrowSurf program's (campaign's) identity and lifecycle') and enumerates the exact mutable fields. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring that editor-tab config (design, emails, options, installation) belongs to the dedicated sub-resource tools, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tools for adjacent work ('edited with the dedicated config sub-resource tools, not here') and gives the conditions that select this tool (identity/lifecycle fields, with at least one field supplied). It also states the negative case — immutable fields type/urlId/currencyISO are rejected — which prevents a foreseeable failed call.

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