Stop an A/B test

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit by specifying exactly what is destroyed (unpublished versions) and what is explicitly preserved (published trial reels stay up, no decision recorded). That is meaningful outcome disclosure beyond the annotation. It does not mention irreversibility of the cancellation or the confirmation-token handshake beyond what the schema already says.

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 compact sentences with the primary effect front-loaded and the caveat about published reels second. Every clause carries decision-relevant information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the key risk surface: what is cancelled, what survives, and where to go for cleanup. Missing only minor items such as post-stop state of the test record and whether confirmation is mandatory in all cases.

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 50%: confirmation_token is well documented in the schema, while test_id is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no format, no sourcing of test_id, no mention of the two-step confirmation flow), so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stops a test') and immediately defines the semantics of that stop: unpublished versions are cancelled and no decision is made. It also pre-answers the follow-up question about already-published trial reels, distinguishing this tool from delete_media rather than leaving the agent to guess.

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 makes the use case clear (abort a test without picking a winner) and names the alternative for the adjacent task (delete published reels via delete_media or the app). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_ab_test or a 'complete/declare winner' path, so the routing is strong but not exhaustive.

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