Compute Participant Auth Hash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a server-side SHA-256 HMAC computation, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain how the `participantAuthSecret` is handled or where the resulting hash is consumed.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being ambiguous, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 not be described, but the description omits key context for a tool that consumes a secret: required permissions, where the hash is applied, and the meaning of two of three parameters. For a security-adjacent auth tool this is thin.

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 carries the full burden. It only hints at `affiliateJoin` (permission to join the affiliate program directly) and says nothing about `email` or the security-sensitive `participantAuthSecret`, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 (Compute) and resource (server-side SHA-256 HMAC for GrowSurf Participant Auto Authentication), which is a distinct concept not covered by any sibling tool. The purpose is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as growsurf_add_participant or the token/mobile-auth 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that it is a server-side operation requiring the participant auth secret). The second sentence only vaguely ties `affiliateJoin` to joining the affiliate program; an agent must infer the calling context.

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