commerce_ab_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scope (authentication context), but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, mutates data, has side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 short (three paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action followed by scoping and parameter details. The routing sentence is arguably unnecessary but does not detract significantly. Overall, it is concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or success criteria. It lacks details on when to use, error conditions, or examples. For a tool that likely involves running experiments, the description is incomplete and fails to equip the agent with sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic clarity but remains generic and does not explain expected format, constraints, or examples. The defaults (empty string and '{}') are already in 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 states it runs the 'commerce domain agent action ab_test', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what ab_test accomplishes (e.g., creating or retrieving A/B test results), making the purpose somewhat vague. The technical routing detail adds little to purpose clarity.

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 other commerce tools (e.g., commerce_experimentation, commerce_predict). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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