growsurf_create_program_resource

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

Annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotency, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: draft-by-default unless isPublished is set, campaignId fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, and the 10MB FILE upload path. It does not discuss duplicate/retry behavior, but it goes meaningfully beyond what annotations alone 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 description is front-loaded with the operation and resource discriminators, and every clause maps to a real parameter or workflow step. It is compact despite covering a conditional multi-type API.

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 complex conditional create operation, the description integrates the multi-step upload flow, field constraints, defaults, and targeting behavior. Return-value details are handled by the output schema, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage, the description compensates for the most important conditional parameters: url for LINK, text for TEXT, uploadTicket/uploadResult for FILE, isPublished defaulting, and campaignId fallback. It leaves title/category/description mostly implicit, but the schema names those self-evidently and the critical disambiguation is covered.

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 names a specific action—creating a participant-facing program resource—and enumerates the exact resource types (FILE, LINK, TEXT). It also names the prerequisite sibling workflow for FILE, which differentiates it from update/delete/prepare tools.

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 clearly tells FILE callers to call growsurf_prepare_program_resource_file first and pass the returned values unchanged, and it states the LINK and TEXT field requirements. It does not explicitly contrast with update/list/delete siblings, but the create-vs-manage distinction is clear enough from the verb and context.

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