ga_send_event

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: events are processed asynchronously and appear in reports within minutes, helping the agent set expectations about immediate vs delayed effects. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded, and avoids redundancy. Three short paragraphs each serve a purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and what behavior to expect.

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 moderately complex tool with four parameters and a rich schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage, async behavior, and event examples; it could be stronger by explicitly routing to specialized senders, but that is a minor gap given the sibling names.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds modest value by listing common event name examples, but it does not substantially expand on user_id, client_id, or user_properties semantics beyond the 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 opens with 'Send a custom event to Google Analytics via Measurement Protocol,' a specific verb plus resource. It further clarifies by listing common custom events like click, form_submit, and custom_conversion, which distinguishes this generic sender from specialized siblings such as ga_send_purchase and ga_send_pageview.

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 states 'Use this for tracking custom user actions, conversions, or any GA4 event,' giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer specialized siblings like ga_send_purchase or ga_send_login, so it stops short of full exclusions/alternatives guidance.

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