create_campaign_experiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and does not explain that creating an experiment will affect traffic allocation, require specific permissions, or produce a new experiment entity. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant content. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but it is not a tautology like 'Process' and earns a slightly above-average score for clarity and economy.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotation support, no output schema, and four required parameters. The description gives no context about the operation's side effects, return values, or the relationship between baseCampaignId and trafficSplitPercent, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, providing clear meanings like 'Experiment name' and 'Traffic split percentage'. The description adds no additional detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the specific resource ('a campaign A/B test experiment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign, which creates a regular campaign, and get_campaign_experiments, which reads experiments.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for an existing base campaign, nor does it contrast with related tools like create_campaign or get_campaign_experiments.

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