growsurf_delete_program_resource

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the important nuance that the Media Center asset survives deletion. It also discloses the campaignId targeting behavior, going beyond the minimal mutation signal.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action, then clarify the asset side effect and campaign targeting. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key call-time decisions: what is deleted, what is not deleted, and which campaignId is used. It doesn't discuss reversibility, but destructiveHint and the delete verb already convey that risk.

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?

resourceId is not described in the schema and the description only identifies it by the noun 'participant resource.' The campaignId fallback behavior is repeated from the schema, so the description adds modest but not comprehensive parameter meaning for 50% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action and object: 'Delete a participant resource from your GrowSurf program.' It also distinguishes the tool's effect from deleting a 'reusable Media Center asset,' and the target object differs from siblings like update_program_resource or delete_campaign_webhook.

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?

Provides clear context by noting that the reusable Media Center asset is not removed, which helps an agent avoid using this tool when asset deletion is intended. The campaignId fallback/override behavior also explains when to pass the optional parameter, though no alternative tool is named.

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