Create mediation A/B experiment

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

The description explains that the treatment variant serves given mediation lines against the existing setup, and notes the required OAuth scope. With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, it does not disclose side effects beyond creation, such as whether existing experiments are affected or if changes are reversible, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value—the purpose, the treatment/control semantics, and the required scope. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich input schema, the description adequately supplements it with the experiment's purpose, the treatment variant behavior, and the required scope. While no output schema exists and return behavior isn't described, the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role and main side effects.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'given mediation lines' and 'existing setup', which aligns with treatmentMediationLines and the control setup but does not substantially expand on the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Creates') and identifies the exact resource ('A/B experiment on a mediation group'). It clearly differentiates the treatment variant from the existing setup, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_mediation_ab_experiment or create_mediation_group.

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?

The description clearly implies usage for creating an A/B experiment on a mediation group, and mentions the required admob.monetization scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implicit.

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