Update Program Design

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you send are changed; anything you leave out is untouched') and explicitly warning that arrays replace wholesale. This is valuable context given destructiveHint=true, and it also clarifies the campaign targeting fallback behavior.

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 efficient, front-loading the core purpose followed by key behavioral rules and parameter guidance. No sentence is wasted; the most important operational constraints are stated clearly and compactly.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, which fields matter, how partial updates and array replacement behave, which campaign is targeted, and the safe invocation pattern (fetch first, preserve starter content). Given the output schema and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 only 50%, and the required `fields` parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining what fields can live inside it, including participantAvatarStyle options and content areas, and by explaining campaignId's fallback and usage for newly created campaigns.

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 it updates the design configuration for a GrowSurf program, naming specific subfields (participantAvatarStyle, login, payoutDestinationConfirmation) and the enum values for participantAvatarStyle. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like growsurf_update_campaign, growsurf_update_campaign_options, or growsurf_update_program_resource by scoping it to design configuration.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: fetch the configuration first, preserve starter content unless the user asked to change it, and pass only the fields to change. It also explains campaignId fallback behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative update tools, but the design-specific scope makes the intended use clear.

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