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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the non-obvious two-phase behavior: the tool is proposed only, returns status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token, and the write occurs only via confirm_action. It also surfaces the duplicate-rejection rule and the tenant-membership authorization constraint — behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 routing statement is front-loaded, the constraints follow, and the confirmation behavior is separated with an explicit label. The parenthetical 'the Django-native way to set up a "Facebook leads" source' is slightly decorative, though it does aid recognition.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the essentials: scope, authorization, uniqueness, and the confirmation return shape. An agent knows what it will get back and what it must do next, so nothing critical is absent.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load. It adds real meaning for tenant_id (must be a tenant the caller belongs to) and meta_campaign_id (uniqueness enforced per campaign), but leaves campaign_name entirely unexplained and gives no format hint for the campaign ID string.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('route a Meta campaign's inbound leads to a target workspace') and frames it as setting up a 'Facebook leads' source, which separates it from plain lead-creation siblings like create_lead. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 states two concrete usage preconditions (the target tenant must be one the caller belongs to; one route per campaign, duplicates rejected) and explicitly routes the confirm step to confirm_action. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer a different creation tool, but the context is otherwise clear.

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