commerce_ab_test

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds a small amount of useful context by stating that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects running ab_test may have. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, starts with the primary action, and uses a clean three-part structure: action, routing context, and parameter definitions. There is no filler, though the routing sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 no schema descriptions and no explanation of what ab_test does, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks examples, prerequisites, side effects, input structure, and a clear statement of when this tool is the right choice among the large sibling set.

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%, so the description carries the parameter meaning. It provides one-line definitions for both args: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This is minimally helpful, but the actual structure or accepted contents of the JSON inputs are left completely unspecified.

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 says the tool will 'Run the commerce domain agent action `ab_test`,' which names a clear verb and resource, but it never explains what the ab_test action actually does or what outcome an agent should expect. It reads as an internal wrapper rather than a user-facing capability, so the purpose remains vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling commerce tools such as commerce_predict, commerce_campaign_brief, or dispatch_domain_agent. The routing context under JWT, tenant, and company scope is execution detail, not selection guidance.

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