Record a conversion event

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the confirm-gate dry-run semantics, that the event feeds analytics/revenue and app.event webhooks, that secret_key authentication is required, and that eventId dedupes retries. The only friction is that the stated eventId idempotency sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though that hint is reasonably read as 'not idempotent by default'.

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?

Front-loads the action and the most consequential constraint (confirm gate) before the identity fields. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'Write.' lead-in is slightly terse relative to the rest but harmless.

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 9-parameter mutation with a nested data object and no output schema, the description covers the decisions an agent must make: whether to call at all (SDK preferred), the confirm gate, and retry safety. Return shape is only gestured at ('you get a preview'), which is the remaining minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: clickId's origin (apps get it from the SDK), eventId's purpose (your order id, safe retries), and confirm's effect. value, currency, platform, and data are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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?

Opens with the verb 'Write' and states precisely what is recorded: one conversion or revenue event from a trusted server-side context, equating it to POST /v1/event. That verb+resource+scope framing separates it cleanly from siblings like list_events, get_analytics, and simulate_tap.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Apps should send events with the SDKs, not this tool') and the condition that flips behavior (confirm: true records; omit/false yields a preview). It also states the server-side/secret_key prerequisite that selects this tool over SDK usage.

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