meta_ads_split_tests_end

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: destructive nature (no further data accrues), potential null winner_cell_id if significance not reached, and reversibility conditions via rollback_apply. This satisfies the full burden for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds essential detail. No fluff or 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers return value, data cessation, conditions for null winner, and reversibility. All necessary behavioral context is provided.

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 100% with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds minimal value: clarifying that account_id can fall back to environment variable and that study_id is required. This meets the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states it ends a running Split Test immediately, specifying the action (end), resource (split test), and timing (before scheduled end_time). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, list by focusing on the termination action.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to end a running split test early) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear and the sibling list includes other split test tools, making differentiation possible.

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