send_test_event

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions auto-generating test_event_code if not provided, but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or that it creates a test event (not real conversion).

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then bullet-like list of args with brief explanations. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema; description does not mention return value, success/failure response, or errors. Also missing context that this is for testing only, not for actual event sending.

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 description fully explains parameters: pixel_id (numeric string), event_name (default 'PageView'), test_event_code (behavior if not provided), custom_data (JSON string with example). Adds meaning beyond 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 explicitly states 'Send a test event via the Conversions API Test Events endpoint', with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_pixel_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention that it's for testing only, not for production events). No exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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