Stop mediation A/B experiment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by explaining the effect of each variant choice (keeping original vs. adopting new lines), providing behavioral insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is missing details about post-action effects (e.g., whether experiment is immediately stopped), prerequisites, and ignores mediationGroupId. This leaves gaps for a fully informed agent.

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 coverage is 75%; the description adds value by explaining the meaning of variantChoice values ('keeps original' vs. 'adopts newly added lines'), which goes beyond the schema's enum. However, mediationGroupId lacks description in both schema and description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool stops a running A/B experiment and picks a winning variant, identifying the verb 'stop' and the resource 'mediation group A/B experiment'. It distinguishes from sibling tool admob_create_ab_experiment.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: when you have a running experiment and want to conclude it by selecting a variant. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and the sibling list includes the creation counterpart.

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