growsurf_update_campaign_emails

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: partial update semantics ('only the fields you send are changed; anything you leave out is untouched'), array wholesale replacement, and the pattern of fetching first to see current fields. It also states that campaignId defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 a compact 4-sentence block with no filler. Each sentence has a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining update semantics, advising a fetch-first pattern, and clarifying the campaignId default. Information is front-loaded—purpose first, then critical behavioral rules, then targeting. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it updates, how partial updates work, how to get current values, and how to target a specific campaign. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema presumably handles that. The description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 50% (only campaignId has a description; fields is just 'type object'). The description compensates by explaining that 'fields' is the update payload, with partial update semantics and array replacement behavior. It also clarifies campaignId's default and that it overrides the environment default. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('the Emails tab configuration for your GrowSurf program'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like growsurf_update_campaign_options or growsurf_update_campaign_design by naming the tab it targets. The sentence 'Targets `campaignId` if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID' further clarifies scope, so an agent can immediately differentiate it from other update 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?

The description clearly explains how to use the tool: 'Only the fields you send are changed; anything you leave out is untouched (arrays replace wholesale).' It advises fetching the tab first to see the full object, and explains the campaignId target and default. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it, the partial-update semantics and fetch-first pattern are strong usage guidance that goes beyond the schema.

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