meta_ads_split_tests_end

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses destructive behavior ('Destructive — no further data accrues'), potential null field ('winner_cell_id may be null'), and irreversibility ('Not automatically reversible'), plus mitigation guidance. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: action, return value, and risk/rollback. No filler, front-loaded with the core operation. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: return value, data accrual cessation, null winner case, and rollback guidance. Given only two well-documented params, this is fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema's straightforward definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 and resource: 'Ends a running Split Test immediately'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_ads_split_tests_create, meta_ads_split_tests_list, and meta_ads_split_tests_get by focusing on the termination act, not creation, listing, or retrieval.

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?

It provides clear context for use: 'before its scheduled end_time' indicates the tool is for early termination. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with no direct 'end' sibling and clear purpose, the usage scenario is evident. The rollback suggestion with mureo_state_action_log_append adds practical guidance.

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