create_event_audience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It only mentions membership duration and its maximum, but omits side effects such as whether duplicate names are allowed, permission requirements, reversibility, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a create operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concrete use case and a key parameter constraint without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover more ground. It explains the business use case and one parameter detail, but does not describe required parameters beyond examples, nor return values or error conditions. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.

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 description adds meaning for two parameters: event_name via concrete examples and membership_duration_days via the max 540 constraint. However, the other three parameters (property_id, display_name, description) remain unexplained beyond the schema, and schema coverage is reported at 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 creates a GA4 audience based on an event trigger, with specific examples ('purchase', 'generate_lead'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_audiences or archive_audience by describing the creation action and its purpose for remarketing to Google Ads.

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 clear context on when to use it ('useful for remarketing lists that can be shared to Google Ads'). While it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, no other sibling tool offers audience creation, so the guidance is adequate for the available toolset.

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