create_experiment

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the authorization requirement and the non-starting lifecycle behavior. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the prerequisite and the sequencing cue front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 non-destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical gaps: permissions, lifecycle sequencing, and the fact that an id is returned for the next call. The remaining hole is parameter-level meaning, which the schema also leaves undocumented.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at configuration_id's meaning via 'bound to an existing configuration'; 'name' and 'description' get no guidance, and format/uniqueness constraints are unstated.

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 ('Create a new experiment') and adds the key constraint that it is bound to an existing configuration. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_experiment, create_configuration, and list_experiments.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (caller must own the configuration or be admin) and the follow-up action ('Does not start the run -- call run_experiment with the returned id next'). This is a textbook when-to-use plus named-alternative pairing with run_experiment.

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