splithub_analytics_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing return fields, status behaviors, cloud-mode automatic creation, and that pageviews are sent automatically. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but it adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and all sentences appear relevant, but the dense, fragment-heavy paragraph is harder to parse than ideal. It earns its length given the tool's complexity, though structure could be improved.

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 complex setup tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers return values, statuses, snippets, and next steps sufficiently. Minor gaps remain around error handling and full 'next' semantics, but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 three parameters. The description reinforces parameter roles and adds a caution about 'force', but does not provide significant additional semantic detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set up analytics in this app', and outlines the setup steps involving a property and provider. It is distinguishable from sibling analytics tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with splithub_property_create or splithub_create_property.

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?

It provides operational guidance for property selection, creation, and wiring, including how to handle statuses like 'none', 'many', and 'other', and when to ask before using 'force'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternative tool references.

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