Prepare Program Resource File

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

The annotations only say not-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds ticket semantics, that GrowSurf itself selects the secure HTTPS destination, the no-credentials/no-URL constraint, the never-retry-an-ambiguous-upload policy, and the altered-results caveat. These are exactly the operational traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers constraints, security, and return contract in compact sentences with no filler. Dense but every clause carries information; only the env-var and default-campaign notes could be tighter.

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 an output schema present there is no need to document the return shape, yet the description still names uploadTicket/uploadResult, and it covers size limits, MIME/extension pairing, security boundaries, retry behavior, and the server-side enablement prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly rather than guess.

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 100%, so the schema already documents fileName, mimeType, campaignId, and fileBase64 in detail. The description mostly restates those (safe name, matching MIME, padded base64) and only adds the 10 MB ceiling and campaign-target default behavior; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Prepare a local file for a FILE Program Resource') and explains that the output is the uploadTicket/uploadResult needed for file resource creation or replacement, which implicitly distinguishes it from growsurf_create_program_resource and on-the-wire upload tools. It is clear, though it never names the sibling it hands off to.

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?

Gives real context for when this applies: only for FILE resources, gated on GROWSURF_UPLOAD_ALLOWED_ORIGINS (otherwise only LINK/TEXT), with an explicit 'does not accept upload URLs or credentials' exclusion. It stops short of stating the sequencing against growsurf_create_program_resource / growsurf_update_program_resource.

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