apple_create_experiment_treatment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It confirms this is a creation/mutation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the experiment must be in a particular state, or what side effects occur. Only the appIconName detail adds behavioral value.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded; the second sentence is a useful, non-redundant clarification of one parameter. Nothing is padded.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented-in-schema parameters needs far more: what gets created, what the response contains, and what name/experimentId mean. The definition is under-specified for the complexity.

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 three parameters, yet the description only explains appIconName. The 'name' parameter (presumably the treatment name) and 'experimentId' are left entirely undocumented, so the description compensates for only a third of the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a treatment (variant) to a test') and parenthetically disambiguates the domain term 'treatment' as 'variant'. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like apple_update_experiment_treatment or apple_create_experiment, but the create semantic is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus apple_update_experiment_treatment or apple_create_experiment, and no prerequisites such as an existing experiment being required. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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