Create an Apple product page optimization test and set the percentage of visitors sent to treatments, with remaining traffic seeing the original page.
Create a product page optimization test. trafficProportion is the percentage of visitors sent to the treatments (split evenly); the rest see the original page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| appId | Yes | ||
| platform | No | IOS | |
| trafficProportion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains traffic routing but omits mutation-related context such as permissions, required setup, experiment lifecycle, or whether creation is reversible.
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 definition is two tight sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and uses the second sentence efficiently to explain the most distinctive parameter.
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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers trafficProportion but leaves the other three parameters, including required appId and name, undocumented.
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 0% across four parameters. The description adds useful meaning for trafficProportion but says nothing about appId, name, platform, or the 1-100 range constraints.
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 a specific verb and resource: create a product page optimization test. It distinguishes creation from sibling experiment operations like list, get, update, and delete, though it does not use the exact term 'experiment'.
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 says what the tool creates but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. There is only an implied 'use this to create' message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.