meta_ads_split_tests_end

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is destructive, halts data accrual, notes that winner_cell_id may be null if significance not reached, and clarifies that it's not automatically reversible. It also suggests recording the before-state for potential rollback.

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 value. It is efficient and free of filler.

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 simple tool (ending a split test), the description covers the action, consequences, output description, and reversibility. Without an output schema, it adequately describes the outcome. Minor missing details like status codes or error conditions are acceptable given tool simplicity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions account_id and study_id but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. It notes account_id's fallback to credentials but that's a minor addition.

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 ('Ends') and resource ('running Split Test'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like meta_ads_split_tests_create, get, and list. It also specifies 'immediately' and 'before its scheduled end_time', adding precision.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to end a running test early) and provides contextual warnings about destructiveness and irreversibility. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context implies this is for early termination.

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