Update Program Resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing partial-update semantics, the one-time nature of uploadTicket, and the campaignId fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. However, it never explains what makes the call destructive - e.g. that switching type between FILE/LINK/TEXT discards the prior resource content - which is the key behavioral risk the agent should know about.

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?

Three dense sentences plus a reference link, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the FILE flow caveat and targeting rule. Every sentence carries information; the only mild waste is the API reference URL, which adds little for an agent that already has the schema.

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 12-parameter tool with a heavily conditional schema and an output schema, the description covers the hardest parts: partial updates, the secure upload handshake, and campaign targeting. The remaining gap - no explanation of how type mutually excludes url/text/upload fields and what changing type does to existing content - is the main reason it is not a 5.

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?

With only 42% schema coverage across 12 parameters, description must compensate, and it does partially: zero-based positioning, the one-time uploadTicket, the 'unmodified' uploadResult requirement, and campaignId's environment-variable default are all meaning beyond the schema. But title, description, category, isPublished, and especially the conditional constraints on type (FILE forbids url/text, LINK requires url, etc.) are left entirely to the dense allOf/anyOf 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update ... participant resource field') plus a secondary operation ('move it to a zero-based position'), which distinguishes it from create_program_resource and delete_program_resource. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the partial-update framing makes the operation 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?

Gives clear context: 'Only supplied fields change' establishes partial-update behavior, and the FILE prerequisite ('requires a one-time uploadTicket and the unmodified uploadResult from GrowSurf's secure upload flow') tells the agent when extra inputs are needed. It never names the sibling that produces those values (prepare_program_resource_file) and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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