Delete Program Resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleting the resource does NOT delete the underlying reusable Media Center asset, which an agent could easily assume otherwise.

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?

Three tight sentences with the destructive action stated first, then the important side-effect caveat, then the targeting rule. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety semantics. Adding the media-asset preservation note and the id-fallback rule makes this nearly complete for a 2-param delete; the only real gap is the unexplained resourceId.

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%: campaignId is documented in the schema and the description reinforces its fallback behavior, but resourceId has no description in either place, leaving the agent to guess where the id comes from (e.g., list_program_resources). The description compensates on one param but not the other.

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 verb and resource ('Delete a participant resource from your GrowSurf program') and immediately scopes it by clarifying that the reusable Media Center asset survives. This separates it from the media-asset concept and from sibling deletes like delete_campaign_reward, though it never names an alternative tool by name.

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 explains targeting context ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID'), which tells the agent how to address the call, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to update_program_resource for modification instead of deletion.

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