Stop mediation A/B experiment

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation. The description adds the 'admob.monetization' scope requirement, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not detail side effects (e.g., irreversibility), but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 the scope requirement is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place without any redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with thorough schema and annotation coverage, the description covers the essential action, method, and authorization. It does not mention the return value, but since there is no output schema, this is not a significant gap.

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 both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'choosing the winning variant' aligns with variantChoice but does not add additional semantic information beyond 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 the specific verb 'Stops' and clearly identifies the resource ('running A/B experiment on a mediation group') and the method ('by choosing the winning variant'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like create_mediation_ab_experiment.

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?

It gives clear context that this is for stopping an active experiment and states the required authorization scope. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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