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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed: switching Pages clears the workspace's Facebook inbox for the old Page. It also discloses the auth model ('no new sign-in', reuses a Facebook login), which is precisely the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentences: action first, then sourcing, then the destructive side effect, then the confirmation guardrail. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with zero filler.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, it covers sourcing, side effects, and a user-confirmation requirement — the essentials. The only gap is the lack of any statement about what the call returns or how failures surface.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents all three parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description repeats the page_id provenance from list_facebook_pages but adds no new semantics and says nothing about idempotency_key beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Connects Facebook to a workspace as the given Page, or switches the Page it posts as') and defines the exact scope of the write. It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling list_facebook_pages, which it references by name.

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 tells the agent where to source input ('Get page ids from list_facebook_pages') and imposes a procedural guardrail ('Confirm the Page name with the user first'). It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the surrounding context and prerequisites are clear.

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