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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true generically; the description goes further by bounding the blast radius ('Messenger keeps working, and leads already received are kept') and stating the auth/feature prerequisites. This tells the agent exactly what is and is not destroyed, which is the highest-value disclosure for a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action, then the scope of the change, then the prerequisites. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, effect scope, and prerequisites adequately. The only omission is how to reverse the action (re-enabling via the sibling tool), which would round it out.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as 'ID of the Facebook Page channel (the `id` from the Pages list).' The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Disable Lead Ads on a Page') and immediately narrows scope ('Unsubscribes the Page from Meta's lead notifications'). It contrasts cleanly with the sibling enable_facebook_page_leads without needing the schema opened.

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 supplies the conditions that matter for choosing this tool: 'Administrators only' and 'Requires feature: facebook_marketing.' However, it never explicitly points to the enable_facebook_page_leads sibling as the inverse operation, so the when-not-to-use routing is left to inference.

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