create_experiment

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new A/B test experiment (ad study)' without revealing side effects (e.g., resource allocation), idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or expected response. For a write operation, this is minimal.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. While concise, it could include more useful context without becoming verbose, but it earns high marks for efficiency.

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?

The description is overly sparse for a creation tool with six parameters (four required) and no output schema. It omits critical details such as return value (likely an experiment ID), constraints on parameter values (e.g., valid time formats), and usage of the 'cells' JSON array. The agent would lack guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, each with clear meaning. The tool description adds no further parameter-level value beyond the schema; thus, baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool creates a new A/B test experiment, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('experiment'), with clarification that it's an ad study. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_experiment, list_experiments, and update_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_campaign, update_experiment). No prerequisites, limitations, or selection criteria are mentioned, making it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among the many creation tools.

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