Create Program Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: new resources default to draft unless isPublished is set, the uploadTicket is one-time, FILE is capped at 10 MB, and the unmodified uploadResult must be passed through. It stops short of describing auth/permission needs or failure behavior.

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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by per-type requirements, then defaults, then the API reference and targeting. Every sentence carries load, though the bare API-reference URL adds little for an agent that already has the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the type matrix, the draft default, the upload flow, and campaign targeting for a 10-parameter conditional mutation. The main remaining gap is not explicitly routing the agent to the prepare-upload sibling that produces uploadTicket/uploadResult.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: it explains the conditional coupling of type to url/text/uploadTicket/uploadResult, the HTTPS constraint, the isPublished default, and the campaignId-to-GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback. This adds real semantics the schema's conditional allOf alone makes hard to parse.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a `FILE`, `LINK`, or `TEXT` resource for participants") and immediately enumerates the three subtypes, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like update_program_resource, list_program_resources, and delete_program_resource 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?

It gives clear per-type usage conditions (LINK needs HTTPS url, TEXT needs text, FILE needs uploadTicket + uploadResult) and states the draft-by-default behavior. However, it never names the obvious prerequisite sibling `growsurf_prepare_program_resource_file` for the "secure upload flow," leaving the agent to infer where uploadTicket/uploadResult come from.

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