design_experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: budget is enforced on trial count and wall time, and a hypothesis must pre-exist. However, the 'commitment 5' / 'commitment 10' jargon is unexplained external-document shorthand that an agent cannot act on, and nothing is said about failure modes, idempotency, or side effects of creating the trial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the JSON-string note is brief. The two 'Enforcement: commitment N' lines consume real space but convey little without the referenced commitment definitions, so the sizing is acceptable but not fully earned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a creation tool with no annotations and many adjacent siblings, the description omits its relationship to run_trial and the trial lifecycle, leaving the agent with a minimum-viable picture.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents programme_id, hypothesis_id, and config. The description's note that config may be a JSON-encoded string merely repeats the schema's own text, adding no new meaning; 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Design an experiment: create a trial (data item) within the programme.' An agent can tell this creates a trial record rather than executing one, but the description never differentiates itself from close siblings like run_trial or get_next_experiment, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The 'hypothesis must exist' enforcement note implies a precondition, but nothing tells the agent when to call design_experiment versus run_trial or get_next_experiment, which is the critical routing decision in this family.

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