product_experimentation

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state side effects, mutability, or what the action actually does (e.g., creates, reads). Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise with a clear structure: a brief purpose statement followed by an Args list. It is not verbose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (running a domain agent action with free-text objective and JSON inputs), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what types of experiments are possible, expected input format, or prerequisites. An output schema exists but is not shared.

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 bears the burden. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. No examples or constraints are provided.

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 'experimentation' domain agent action, giving a verb and resource, but it does not clarify what experimentation entails (e.g., creating, analyzing, or managing experiments). There is a sibling tool 'product_experiment_design', but the description offers no differentiation.

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 alternatives like 'product_experiment_design' or other product tools. The mention of routing through a dispatcher gives context but no usage criteria.

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