create_experiment

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

The description provides no behavioral context. With annotations absent, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects (e.g., experiment creation, potential irreversibility, required permissions). It only states the action without any additional behavioral details.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is extremely brief and could include additional value without becoming verbose.

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 creation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens after creation, how results are returned, or any required context such as prerequisites. The schema covers parameter formats, but the description lacks operational context.

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 input schema covers all 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no bonus is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'A/B test experiment (ad study)', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_experiment, update_experiment, and list_experiments by explicitly indicating a creation operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where update_experiment or list_experiments would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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