Send Test Conversion Event (CAPI Dispatcher)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals automatic SHA-256 hashing of emails/phones and deduplication token attachment, and it notes both test and live dispatch. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, response behavior, failure modes, or whether test events are actually stored or counted.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action, event examples, and key automatic behaviors are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and immediately useful.

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?

This is an external write action with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the agent needs more context about prerequisites and expected results. The description explains what happens to the inputs but not what the tool returns, whether setup is required first, or how failures are surfaced.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds some meaningful context around hashing and deduplication that relates to user_email, user_phone, and event_id, but it largely restates what the schema already says.

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 states a specific action (dispatches a server-side conversion event) with concrete examples and a clear scope qualifier ('test or live'). It is easily distinguished from sibling conversion-management tools, none of which actually send conversion events.

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 core use case is clearly implied: use this when you need to send a conversion event. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or prerequisites, such as needing a Conversions API key or settings configured via sibling tools like create_conversions_api_key or create_conversion_event_setting.

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