growsurf_update_participant

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

Discloses multiple behavioral details beyond annotations: read-only fields are rejected with 400, affiliateStatus has specific enrollment rules and limitations (cannot remove enrollment via REST), notes are internal-only, and campaignId targeting follows a default. This is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true) and adds value for agents deciding whether to call the tool.

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 yet comprehensive: it front-loads the core action, then systematically covers constraints, affiliate-specific logic, notes, and campaign targeting. Every sentence contributes essential information without fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 13 parameters and given the existing output schema and annotations, the description covers the most operationally critical behaviors (partial updates, read-only rejection, affiliate status rules, campaign targeting). Missing parameter explanations (e.g., referredBy, vanityKeys) are minor because the output schema and existing docs might cover them, but the description could be more exhaustive.

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 31%, so the description compensates by explaining critical parameters: affiliateStatus (enum values and enrollment implications), notes (freeform and internal), campaignId (default and usage), and the identification fields (participantId/participantEmail). However, some parameters like referredBy, vanityKeys, and unsubscribed lack description in both schema and description, leaving gaps for those.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a participant') with clear identification methods (GrowSurf participant ID or email). It clearly differentiates from siblings like growsurf_get_participant (read) and growsurf_add_participant (create) by focusing on modifying existing participants.

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?

Clarifies partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you send are changed') and the campaign targeting fallback, giving an agent clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'use add_participant for creation') or name alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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