track_event

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'triggers behavior-based automations' without detailing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate events. This is insufficient for an action with side effects.

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 concise (two short sentences) but lacks structure. The second sentence is a fragment. It is not verbose but could be better organized to include more context without adding length.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (unmentioned), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how to differentiate from sibling tools like track_site_event.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only notes 'event_data: optional value string', but provides no explanation for event_name or contact_email beyond the schema. This adds marginal value.

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 tool tracks a custom event for a contact and triggers behavior-based automations. The verb 'track' and resource 'custom event for a contact' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like track_site_event which is for site events.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., track_site_event or add_contact_to_automation). No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints are given.

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