send_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Send', implying mutation, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether an event is recorded, idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the usage context (e.g., a brief note about alternatives), but it remains 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of 8 parameters (with nested objects), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, event ID) or address error handling. For a data-sending tool, this is a significant gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond stating 'custom event or pageview'; it does not clarify that 'eventName' is optional for pageviews (though the schema does). It adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Send' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a custom event or pageview to Umami', explicitly stating its utility for server-side tracking. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'batch_events' (for batching) and 'get_events' (for retrieval) by focusing on a single submission action.

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 a contextual hint ('useful for server-side tracking') suggesting when to use it (i.e., when client-side tracking is not feasible), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_events' or 'get_events'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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