setup_ga4_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it is interactive (asks user for input), fixes setup issues, and re-initializes without restart. It could mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config) but is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information. Excellent structure.

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 tool's complexity (interactive setup fix), the description covers what it does, how it does it (interactively), and when to call. It doesn't mention prerequisites or output schema (which exists, so not required). Slightly incomplete on potential failure modes but adequate.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the tool's interaction pattern, which is sufficient.

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 the tool's purpose: to interactively fix a broken GA4 MCP setup. It specifies the exact scenarios (missing property ID, missing/expired credentials, missing access) and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle data queries or schema searches.

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 explicitly says 'Call this whenever a configuration or authentication error is reported', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies not to use it when setup is fine, differentiating it from other tools.

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