stopAdmobMediationAbExperiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only says 'Stop an active mediation A/B experiment.' It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., applying variantChoice).

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 sentence with no extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness while conveying the core purpose.

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 omits crucial context: it does not mention that the tool also applies the winning variant (as implied by the variantChoice parameter), nor does it explain the effect of stopping an experiment. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including enum values for variantChoice and a format example for experimentName. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource as 'an active mediation A/B experiment', clearly stating the tool's action and object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createAdmobMediationAbExperiment.

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 vs alternatives, such as when an experiment should be stopped vs. left running, or any prerequisites. It only states the basic action without context.

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