growsurf_update_campaign_installation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about 403 for missing origins, emphasizes that untouched fields remain unchanged, and notes arrays replace wholesale. It contradicts nothing and clarifies the destructive nature via the 'replace wholesale' warning.

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 compact, around five sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes: the patch semantics, the ordering rule, the array behavior, the 403 risk, and the fetch-first advice. No fluff, and it flows logically.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, arrays, default campaign ID), the description is comprehensive. It covers the default target, patching model, array replacement, ordering requirement, a concrete error condition (403), and a recommended workflow (fetch first). With an output schema available, no return-value details are needed, but everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding: it distinguishes `shareUrl` from `signup.url`, explains the `allowedUrls` array replacement, and mentions common keys like `signupEvent` and `referralTrigger`. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions, adding practical context.

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 tool updates the Installation tab configuration for a GrowSurf program. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Installation tab configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update other campaign aspects (design, emails, options). No ambiguity.

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?

Provides solid usage guidance: fetch the tab first, patch only desired fields, and set `shareUrl` before `allowedUrls`. It explains behavior for arrays (wholesale replacement) and the default campaignId. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool name and context make the intended scenario clear.

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