growsurf_prepare_program_resource_file

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses one-time ticket behavior, no retry on ambiguous uploads, no acceptance of upload URLs or credentials, secure HTTPS destination, environment variable requirement, and campaignId targeting. It matches the annotations and adds substantial execution context.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, inputs, security behavior, output contract, failure policy, prerequisite, and campaign targeting. It opens with the core action and required inputs before adding supporting details.

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 file-upload preparation tool with a multi-step contract, the description covers prerequisites, output shape, downstream consumer, constraints, and fallback behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or route the result is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters at 100 percent coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the 10 MB maximum, requiring a safe name and matching MIME type, and emphasizing padded base64 bytes with no data-URL prefix, reinforcing constraints an agent might otherwise miss.

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 (prepare a local file), defines the resource type (FILE Program Resource), and explicitly ties its output to growsurf_create_program_resource and growsurf_update_program_resource. The scope is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from the create/update siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the create/update tools that consume the ticket and states that this tool is the only source of uploadTicket and uploadResult. It also explains the server-side prerequisite, warns that FILE resources are unavailable without it, and notes LINK and TEXT as the only alternatives.

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