growsurf_request_participant_payout_destination_confirmation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, etc.), the description adds useful behavioral detail: it sends a one-time confirmation link, only the participant can confirm, and it 'just triggers the message' (implying no direct state change on the participant). It also notes the provider must be enabled. These specifics go beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like multiple sends or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations is apparent.

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 succinct, about 70 words, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key behavioral notes, return value, and campaign targeting in a logical order. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers the essential usage context: what triggers, prerequisites (provider enabled), return format, and campaign targeting default. It does not explain error conditions or authentication requirements, but these are not required given the output schema and typical tool documentation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has only 50% description coverage (provider and campaignId have descriptions; participantId and participantEmail do not). The description compensates by clarifying that participantId and participantEmail are alternative identifiers for targeting the participant (aligning with the anyOf constraint), explains the provider parameter's role, and details the campaignId default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify formats or validations beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the action ('Ask a participant to confirm their payout destination'), the target (a participant, by ID or email), and the mechanism (sends a one-time confirmation link). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like growsurf_get_participant_payout_destination (which retrieves the destination) by emphasizing that this triggers a confirmation request rather than performing the confirmation itself.

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 provides contextual guidance: it triggers a message (not the actual confirmation), requires the provider to be enabled, and explains campaign targeting with a default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this to initiate a confirmation request, rather than growsurf_get_participant_payout_destination to view the current destination.' This leaves some inference to the agent.

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