create_studySet up a new study within an existing project to define a marketing question and analysis parameters. This prepares context for Bayesian model building without starting any runs.
Create a study owned by an existing project. Does not launch models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| max_attempts | No | ||
| max_concurrent | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the study is created in an existing project and no models are launched, helping the agent avoid assuming side effects.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying non-launch behavior is placed at the end where it serves as a useful qualifier without distraction.
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 straightforward creation tool, the description covers the key contextual requirement (existing project) and the most likely confusion (model launching). With annotations and an output schema present, the remaining omissions are mostly parameter semantics, which are partially compensated by clear parameter names.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Parameter names like name, question, project_id, max_attempts, and max_concurrent are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a study') and adds the scoping condition 'owned by an existing project.' The explicit note 'Does not launch models' helps distinguish this from launch_study_run or run_optimizer.
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?
It implies the appropriate use context: creating a study under an existing project rather than executing or launching anything. The negative statement 'Does not launch models' provides a clear when-not signal, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.