Create experiment

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

The annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that traffic assignment does not happen here, preventing an incorrect assumption, but it does not explain permissions, validation behavior, or what the traffic_split/salt fields do.

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 two sentences are tight and front-loaded, with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though that brevity comes at the cost of leaving important parameter and workflow context unexplained.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations reduce the need to explain return values and safety, the description is too thin for a seven-parameter write tool with 0% schema description coverage. It gives no help on required fields, optional configuration such as traffic_split or salt, or how this tool relates to the broader experiment workflow.

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% across seven parameters, and the description adds no meaning for name, hypothesis, primary_metric, salt, traffic_split, offer_id, or notes. This is the same failure mode as the low-calibration example where three parameters at 0% coverage scored a 1; here the gap is larger.

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 a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('experiment'), and its caveat 'does not assign traffic by itself' helps separate it from assign_cells. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though 'running experiment' is slightly vague about whether it is creating a new record or persisting an existing one.

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 only usage-related information is the negative constraint that it does not assign traffic, which hints that assignment is a separate step. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_experiments, close_experiment, or assign_cells, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance beyond that single caveat.

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