growsurf_add_participant

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses idempotent behavior ('Existing participants are returned unchanged'), explains affiliate status logic in detail, and warns about misuse. It doesn't mention side effects like email triggers, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 lengthy but each sentence carries essential information. It front-loads the primary action, then details conditional logic. No filler, and the structure follows a logical order from purpose to exclusions to parameter behavior.

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 an 11-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers enrollment logic, campaign targeting, and warnings. It omits explanation of several less-critical parameters and does not describe output or error scenarios, though the output schema covers return values. Adequate but with gaps.

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 18%, so description must compensate. It does explain isAffiliate and referredBy extensively, and reinforces campaignId. However, it is silent on other parameters like metadata, ipAddress, fingerprint, etc., leaving those unclear. It adds value for the most critical params but not all.

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 clearly states 'Add or fetch a participant by email' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that existing participants are returned unchanged. It also contrasts with public application flows, distinguishing itself from the broader enrollment context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'This is trusted direct enrollment; do not use it for a public application when the program requires affiliate review.' It also details when to set isAffiliate true/false and the interaction with referredBy, plus campaign targeting via campaignId or default. While it doesn't name an alternative tool, the conditions are clear.

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