apple_delete_experiment

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 does disclose one meaningful behavioral constraint — the test must not have run — but omits irreversibility, required permissions/roles, and the failure mode when the precondition is violated, which are the traits that matter most for a destructive call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the constraint arrive in one pass. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps in other dimensions.

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, non-annotated tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, this is thin. An agent lacks irreversibility guidance, the error behavior for a running test, and any pointer on ID provenance — the definition does not give enough to invoke it safely with confidence.

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% for the single required parameter experimentId, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no indication of where to obtain the ID (e.g., from apple_list_experiments). With one undocumented parameter the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 (delete) and resource (product page optimization test / experiment), which lets an agent distinguish it from adjacent siblings such as apple_delete_experiment_treatment and apple_delete_custom_product_page. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the resource is precise enough to identify the target unambiguously.

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 phrase 'that has not run' gives an implicit precondition that narrows when this is legal, but the description never says what to do instead for a test that has run (e.g., use apple_update_experiment to stop it) and names no alternatives. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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