create_experiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, irreversibility, or what happens upon successful creation. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It places the verb first and the object immediately after, making it easy to scan.

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 covers the core purpose, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain the return value or post-creation state, leaving some ambiguity for a create operation in a complex API.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 resource ('A/B test experiment') scoped to an app store version. It distinguishes from sibling experiment management tools like list_experiments, get_experiment, start_experiment, and stop_experiment by its creation focus.

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 usage context is implied (this is the tool to create a new experiment) but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor alternatives mentioned. It does not clarify interactions with siblings like start_experiment or create_custom_product_page.

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