create_experiment

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note about authorization requirements, which is not present in annotations. It does not elaborate on side effects or creation semantics, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. 'Create an experiment configuration' states the core purpose immediately, and 'REQUIRES AUTHORIZATION' adds an important operational note without wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The schema covers parameters, output schema exists, and annotations cover basic behavioral hints. However, the description does not clarify the relationship between creating an experiment configuration and creating a pilot configuration, which is a meaningful completeness gap given the sibling tool list. The authorization note and schema details are sufficient for basic invocation but not full contextual selection.

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%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents the name and configuration object, including a pointer to list_pilot_options. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Create an experiment configuration.' This clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tool create_pilot_configuration, which appears to be a closely related creation operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use create_experiment versus create_pilot_configuration or validate_pilot_configuration. The only usage-related note is 'REQUIRES AUTHORIZATION,' which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use instruction. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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