Stop an A/B test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the change is publicly visible and requires user confirmation first. It stops short of saying whether stopping is reversible or what happens to the non-chosen variants.

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 clauses with the effect stated first and the confirmation requirement second. Every phrase carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the key agent-facing concerns: what changes, the public visibility, and the confirmation gating. Minor gaps remain around preconditions (test must be active) and post-stop state, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 67%, with `keep` and `confirmation_token` already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for `keep` by explaining that "A = original", which the schema does not state. It says nothing about `test_id` or how the confirmation_token round-trip works, leaving the baseline level.

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") plus the resulting state change ("puts the chosen version live"), and clarifies the default variant meaning with "(A = original)". It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_ab_test or list_ab_tests, but the mutation framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 clause "Public change, so the user confirms first" communicates a real usage prerequisite (user approval before invoking), which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_ab_test/list_ab_tests, nor any precondition such as the test needing to be running or have enough data.

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