meta_ads_split_tests_end

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is destructive, stops data accrual, notes significance implications, and mentions reversible conditions via rollback_apply. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, outcome, and reversibility. No unnecessary words.

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, the description adequately explains the return value (final record with confidence, null winner). It covers the key behavioral and reversal aspects. Slightly missing explicit mention of optional account_id fallback, but schema covers it.

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 the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not discuss parameters beyond the tool's action, which is acceptable. No added semantic value for parameters.

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 the tool ends a running Split Test immediately, distinguishing it from siblings like create, get, and list. It specifies the verb 'Ends' and resource 'running Split Test', and mentions returning the final record.

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 implies when to use (immediate termination) and provides context about consequences (no further data, possible null winner). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation.

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