growsurf_delete_campaign_reward

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by specifying exactly what gets destroyed (reward config and connected upfront-discount coupons) and the return shape ({ id, success }). This aligns with annotations and adds valuable context about the cleanup behavior. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: action/effects, parameter clarification, and targeting logic. No redundancy or verbosity.

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 destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the return shape, the cleanup side effects, and the default target behavior. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but annotations provide the destructive hint and the output schema presumably documents the response. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only campaignId has a description). The description compensates: it explicitly identifies '`campaignRewardId` is the reward key' and explains the default behavior of campaignId (targets GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID when omitted). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema for the required parameter and clarifies optional parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Delete'), the resource ('campaign reward'), and the scope ('from your GrowSurf program'). It also details the side effects (deactivated, removed, coupons cleaned up), which distinguishes it from update or create siblings. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 makes it clear that this is the delete/removal tool, implying use when a reward should be permanently removed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_campaign_reward for partial modifications or state when not to use it. The context is clear but could be stronger with an explicit 'use this for deletion, use update for changes' statement.

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