Test Conversion Event (CAPI)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is explaining the non-production test behavior and the auto-set test_event_code. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe the full response or what a successful test looks like.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently conveys the sibling relationship and the test_event_code behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 rich schema and clear sibling differentiation, the description covers the essential information for calling the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of any hint about how to interpret the response, but the response_format parameter and test-oriented nature mitigate this somewhat.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that test_event_code is auto-set if not provided and that the parameter set mirrors meta_send_conversion_event, which helps the agent understand parameter relationships 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 clearly identifies the tool as a test operation for CAPI setup by sending a test event, and explicitly distinguishes it from meta_send_conversion_event by noting the auto-set test_event_code. The verb 'Tests' plus the resource 'CAPI setup' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this is for testing CAPI setup and that it won't affect production data, which signals when to use it versus the production-oriented sibling. It also names meta_send_conversion_event and explains the key behavioral difference, giving the agent a clear selection criterion.

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