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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say that completing likely finalizes results, that changes may be irreversible, or whether a winner must be supplied. The status labels it lists (pause/resume/complete) don't even match the schema enum (active/paused/completed), a small inconsistency.

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?

A single short sentence with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits useful context rather than trimming fat.

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 small 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the essentials are arguably covered, but an agent completing an experiment needs to know that 'winner' matters in that case and whether the change is reversible — neither is addressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters and the optional 'winner' are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's parenthetical loosely hints at status values but uses different wording than the enum and never mentions 'winner' or when it is needed.

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 (experiment) plus the field being changed (status), with the possible transitions named. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like delete_experiment or the create/get experiment tools, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this over delete_experiment, create_experiment, or get_experiment, nor any prerequisites (permissions, whether a completed experiment can be reopened). The parenthetical enumerates actions but gives no routing guidance.

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