Create a VWO campaign variation

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description adds critical context: variations affect real traffic and alter collected data. It honestly states the body is sent as-is. No contradictions.

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 sentences in the main description efficiently convey purpose and impact. Parameter descriptions are clear and well-structured. No extraneous content.

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?

While the description explains the impact on traffic, it omits return value (e.g., created variation object). No output schema; a brief hint would improve completeness. Adequate but not thorough.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying body as sent as-is, cautioning against guessing ids, and explaining workspaceName vs accountId fallback.

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 'Add a new variation to a VWO campaign' with a specific verb and resource. It explains what variations are (live visitors see them) and distinguishes this from update/delete/list 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 (adding a variation) but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives like vwo_update_campaign_variation. No exclusionary guidance.

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