growsurf_bulk_delete_participants

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by detailing exactly what is destroyed (referrals, rewards, commissions, payouts), the response structure (summary and per-row statuses), and the fact that a 200 response can include NOT_FOUND or ERROR rows. This prepares the agent for partial failures and cascading effects, adding significant value beyond structured metadata.

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 dense yet efficient — the destructive warning is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value (chunking, response format, campaign fallback). There is no filler or redundancy, and the structure guides the agent from warning to usage to expectation.

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 tool with this complexity — bulk deletion with nuanced response semantics and destructive side effects — the description is complete. It explains limits, response parsing, status meanings, and the campaign fallback, all essential for correct invocation, especially given the existing output schema.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including mixed types, max 200 entries, and the default campaignId. The description reiterates these points but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 the tool bulk deletes participants from a GrowSurf program, using the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'participants'. It distinguishes itself from single-participant and campaign-level tools by emphasizing 'bulk' and 'in one request'. The scope is immediately evident.

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 offers practical usage guidance, including chunking lists larger than 200 entries and the campaignId default behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., growsurf_update_participant) or state when not to use this tool, so it's clear but lacks comparative exclusions.

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