apple_update_experiment_treatment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only the mutable fields. It doesn't say whether name and appIconName can be changed together or are mutually exclusive, whether the update is partial/merge, what happens to unspecified fields, or what an error looks like.

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 and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is also the source of the missing detail rather than a symptom of good structure.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter schema, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks permission requirements, success/return behavior, and confirmation of which parameters may be combined.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does map 'rename' to the name parameter and 'alternate icon' to appIconName, which helps. However, treatmentId, the one required parameter, is never explained, and nothing indicates that both optional fields are constrained to minLength 1 strings.

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 pairs specific verbs (rename, change) with the concrete resource (a treatment) and its two mutable fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apple_update_experiment or apple_create_experiment_treatment, though it never names the treatment ID as the target key.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus apple_update_experiment, apple_delete_experiment_treatment, or the localization tools. Prerequisites (an existing experiment treatment) and the fact that only name/icon are editable are left implicit.

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