app_store_version_experiment_treatments_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a write via POST, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, required parent relationships, idempotency, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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 but wasteful: the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, and the only remaining content is a schema pointer. Nothing is front-loaded that helps selection or invocation.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the resource, the required parent linkage, and the body shape. Instead it defers to a components.schemas reference that is not included, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request from the definition.

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 there is a single body parameter that the schema documents, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond a circular pointer to an external OpenAPI component reference, which the agent cannot resolve from the tool definition alone.

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 only restates the HTTP method and path of the underlying endpoint rather than stating what the tool does in domain terms. An agent gets more signal from the tool name ('create_instance' for app store version experiment treatments) than from the description itself. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like app_store_version_experiment_treatments_update_instance or delete_instance.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an existing parent experiment), or how it relates to the update/delete/get siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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