growsurf_participant_auth_hash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds the 'server-side' qualifier and the affiliateJoin condition, but does not disclose more behavioral traits like error handling, validation, or external dependencies. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate—it adds small value without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a focused parameter note. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent scanning for intent.

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?

With no schema descriptions and three parameters, an agent needs more guidance. The description explains only one parameter's condition, leaving email and participantAuthSecret open to interpretation. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not clarify the intended use of the output or the role of the secret. This is a material gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly explains the semantics of affiliateJoin ('only when this signed-in user may join the affiliate program directly'), but leaves email and participantAuthSecret unaddressed. email is self-explanatory as a string, but participantAuthSecret is not explicitly tied to the HMAC secret key—it's only implied by 'server-side SHA-256 HMAC'. This is insufficient for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and a precise resource ('server-side SHA-256 HMAC for GrowSurf Participant Auto Authentication'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like participant retrieval or campaign management by focusing on auth-hash generation. The additional affiliateJoin note clarifies a secondary purpose.

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 an explicit condition for when to set affiliateJoin ('only when this signed-in user may join the affiliate program directly'), which is a direct usage guideline. There are no true alternatives among siblings—no other tool computes an auth hash—so a 'when not to use' isn't necessary. The purpose sentence implies the primary use case (generating an auth hash for auto authentication).

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