airstrings_variant_start

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

Annotations declare the write/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the non-idempotent downstream effect (live after publish), the draft-only constraint, the validation requirement that every variant cover every locale, the environment refusal behavior, and the return value. Substantial added context.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, timing, preconditions, environment behavior, and return value. Front-loaded with the action, no filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states what is returned (the updated experiment) and covers the prerequisites, env restrictions and lifecycle effects an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter tool.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'key'. The description adds only the framing 'one string key so its variants are served', which does not meaningfully extend the schema semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (start) and resource (draft A/B experiment for one string key) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings airstrings_variant_set, airstrings_variant_stop and airstrings_variant_promote. An agent can tell exactly which lifecycle operation this is without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisites (only a draft can start, invoked after airstrings_variant_set), a stated condition for failure (protected/production environments are refused), and a concrete alternative action (start it in a writable environment instead). Timing guidance ('takes effect after the next airstrings_publish') is also given.

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