app_store_version_experiments_v2__create

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description adds behavioral context: the experiment can have up to three treatments, traffic is split by share, and treatments must be attached separately. This clarifies what the tool does and does not do, which is valuable for a create operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the endpoint path for clarity. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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 create tool with a nested JSON:API body, the description captures the essential context: the purpose (A/B test), constraints (max three treatments, traffic split), and a clear boundary (treatments attached separately). The schema covers the parameter structure, so the description complements it well. Minor omissions like authentication or prerequisites are not critical here.

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 lists attributes (name, platform, trafficProportion) but provides no descriptions for them. The description adds meaning by explaining 'split by traffic share' (mapping to trafficProportion) and 'up to three treatments' (context for the experiment structure). This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Start an A/B test') and clearly identifies the resource ('a version's product page'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the creation action and mentioning 'Treatments and their assets are attached separately', which sets boundaries against treatment-specific tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating experiments ('Start an A/B test'), and the note about treatments being attached separately guides users toward subsequent steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for update/delete/get, though the context makes them obvious.

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