ga_send_login

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond restating that it sends a login event; it does not mention side effects, requirements, or consequences such as what data is transmitted or whether a successful send returns anything.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No filler, redundant sections, or unnecessary technical detail; the description earns its length.

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 straightforward event-sending tool, the description plus schema cover the essentials: what it sends and the required method. However, it lacks usage-alternative guidance, behavioral caveats, and any indication of return value or output, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent selecting among many event-sending siblings.

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 coverage is 75%, with client_id left undescribed, and the description does not compensate for that gap. Mentioning 'authentication method' loosely echoes the method parameter, but adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing description of method.

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 specific action and resource: sending a login event to Google Analytics. It identifies the event type as 'login,' which distinguishes it from broader siblings like ga_send_event or ga_send_signup, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 phrase 'Standard event for tracking user logins' provides clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the login-specific framing makes the intended use case obvious among the many send_* siblings.

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