app_store_version_experiments_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 burden. It discloses only the deprecation status; it says nothing about what the call creates, whether it needs a specific App Store version context, side effects, or error behavior 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?

It is short, but the front-loaded deprecation is followed by the redundant string 'POST /v1/appStoreVersionExperiments (POST /v1/appStoreVersionExperiments)' repeated twice, which wastes the one sentence of real estate available.

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 endpoint with a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it does not summarize the required envelope fields, the deprecation migration path, or the effect of the call. Only the schema reference keeps it partly usable.

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?

There is a single parameter (body) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's pointer to 'components.schemas.AppStoreVersionExperimentCreateRequest' duplicates text already present in the schema's own body description, adding no new semantics.

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 never states in words what the tool does; the verb+resource must be inferred from the HTTP mapping 'POST /v1/appStoreVersionExperiments' and the tool name. It does at least pin the resource and operation and marks the tool [DEPRECATED], which the name alone does not convey, but a reader gets no plain-language statement of purpose.

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 [DEPRECATED] tag is the only usage signal, and it is not followed by guidance: the description never names app_store_version_experiments_v2_create_instance as the replacement, nor says when this call is still acceptable. No prerequisites or migration path are given.

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