ga_send_event

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and external side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral details: asynchronous processing and reporting delay ('appear in reports within minutes'). It does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but given annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 three short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third lists common event examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers key context: purpose, usage, async behavior, and typical event names. Missing explicit return-value expectations (e.g., 2xx acknowledgment) and any caveats about data limits, but the description is largely complete for a fire-and-forget event sender.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like events, user_id, client_id, and user_properties. The description adds a few example event names (`click`, `form_submit`, `video_play`), but these are illustrative rather than enriching parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a custom event to Google Analytics via Measurement Protocol.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific event types (e.g., ga_send_purchase, ga_send_signup) by emphasizing 'custom' and 'any GA4 event.'

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this for tracking custom user actions, conversions, or any GA4 event.' It implies this is the generic fallback compared to specialized siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use dedicated tools when available.' This is strong guidance but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion.

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