send_test_event

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that test_event_code can be auto-generated and provides a custom_data example, but it omits side effects, error states, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are important for safe usage.

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 reasonably concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. While clear, the 'Args' section could be more structured (e.g., as bullet points), but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., pixel_id must exist). It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: pixel_id (numeric string), event_name (default), test_event_code (auto-generates if missing), and custom_data (JSON string with example). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Send a test event via the Conversions API Test Events endpoint.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pixel_events and diagnose_pixel_on_site by focusing on event sending rather than retrieval or diagnostics.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over other pixel-related tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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