apple_update_experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add real value: the one-way nature of starting and the App Review gate for new visuals. It does not state whether omitted fields are left untouched, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the actionable verbs and followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the updateable fields and the review caveat but omits update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), permission requirements, and return expectations. Adequate but with clear remaining gaps.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining the intent behind each optional parameter: name means rename, trafficProportion means traffic share, and started=true means start. Only experimentId and numeric bounds are left to the schema, which already supplies minimum/maximum.

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 names the specific mutations available (rename, change traffic share, start) on the resource referred to as a 'test', which maps clearly to an experiment. It doesn't explicitly say it is a partial update of an existing experiment or reference the experimentId, but an agent can distinguish this from create/delete experiment siblings.

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 it by listing the editable aspects (name, traffic share, started), but never names alternatives such as apple_update_experiment_treatment for treatment-level changes or apple_delete_experiment. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the App Review note.

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