createAdmobMediationAbExperiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Create an A/B experiment' with no disclosure of side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing experiments?), permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies traffic allocation.

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?

Single sentence with 9 words, no fluff. Front-loaded with the action. However, it could incorporate more information without becoming verbose. Still, it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created experiment resource), prerequisites (existing mediation group), or constraints (e.g., only one experiment per group?). This leaves agents underinformed.

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%, so each parameter already has clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it does not explain differences between parameters like variantChoice vs treatmentTrafficPercentage). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'an A/B experiment for a mediation group.' It distinguishes from siblings like createAdmobMediationGroup (creates a group, not an experiment) and stopAdmobMediationAbExperiment (stops, not creates). However, it could specify that this is specifically for A/B experiments, which is already implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to stop an experiment or create a mediation group). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing mediation group, which is only implicit in the required parameter mediationGroupName.

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