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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond stating 'Queue'. It does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, what the refresh entails (e.g., updating routing tables), or any prerequisites like the user being bound. With no annotation coverage for these details, the description carries the burden but fails to elaborate.

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 description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and object, making it immediately scannable. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context: what a successful refresh looks like, whether the user must be pre-bound, and what happens to routing after queuing. Given the tool's role among many FB user and asset management siblings, this lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about side effects and prerequisites. The description is too sparse for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It says 'for one FB user', which implies fb_user_label identifies the user, but it does not explain what a 'label' is, how to obtain it, or whether it is required (schema shows required: 0). This adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity about the parameter's format and necessity.

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 states a specific action ('Queue'), a precise object ('ad-account routing refresh'), and scope ('one FB user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like assets_refresh_all (which refreshes all assets) and fb_users_update_label (which updates labels). The verb+resource+scope pattern makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for refreshing a single user's routing, nor does it contrast with related tools like assets_refresh_all or fb_users_update_permissions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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