growsurf_update_campaign_options

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

The description discloses partial update semantics ('Only the fields you send are changed; anything you leave out is untouched') and array replacement behavior, adding significant value beyond the annotations. Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, so the description's extra detail on per-field behavior is important and not contradictory.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core action, then the critical partial-update behavior, then a recommended workflow, then the campaignId targeting. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: purpose, partial update semantics, safe usage workflow, and parameter targeting. For a two-parameter tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 schema only describes campaignId (coverage 50%), while the description explains that `fields` is the container for the specific fields to change and clarifies campaignId's default and purpose. This compensates fully for the missing schema description of `fields`, giving clear meaning to both parameters.

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 Options tab configuration for a GrowSurf program, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_campaign and get_campaign_options. The verb 'Update' and resource 'Options tab configuration' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: fetch the full object first, then send only the fields you want to change. Also clarifies that campaignId defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, and how to avoid unintended overwrites.

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