growsurf_create_campaign

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: false, idempotentHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the program is created in DRAFT status, owned by the credential's team, `currencyISO` is defaulted and immutable, and editor-tab config is not accepted. These behavioral details go beyond the annotations and are essential for correct invocation.

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 information-dense but well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, then details constraints and usage. Every sentence contributes meaning, though it is somewhat long. The structure effectively separates core action from caveats and next steps, making it readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it defines the context (DRAFT status, ownership, no campaign ID needed), specifies required vs optional parameters, explains why config sub-resources are not accepted, and tells the agent what to do with the returned `id`. It is complete for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It covers `type` (required), `currencyISO` (defaults to USD, immutable), and `rewards` (optional inline). It also clarifies that editor-tab config (design, emails, options, installation) is not a parameter here. However, it does not explicitly explain `name`, `companyName`, or `companyLogoImageUrl`, though these are self-evident. Overall it compensates well but leaves a couple of minor gaps.

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 'Create a new GrowSurf program (campaign) pre-populated with type-appropriate starter content, optionally with inline rewards.' This specifies a concrete action (create), a specific resource (GrowSurf program/campaign), and distinct characteristics (pre-populated, inline rewards). It distinguishes itself from siblings like growsurf_clone_campaign and growsurf_update_campaign by explicitly noting what it does and what it does not accept.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only `type` is required, status is DRAFT, it's owned by the credential's bound team, and it does NOT require GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. It also instructs the agent to fetch and review config sub-resources after creation and patch only what needs to change, effectively guiding the workflow. It clearly states that editor-tab config is not accepted here, preventing misuse.

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