ad_manager_fb_create_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'Create,' which is implied by the tool name. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the integration persists globally, requires OAuth, or affects other resources) despite openWorldHint=true. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for minimal additional value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action, which is structurally clean. However, it is too terse to be genuinely useful on its own—it omits any context that would help an agent decide whether to call it. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity, resulting in an average score.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no additional context, the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (such as whether a Facebook page must already exist, whether OAuth is needed), nor does it explain the consequences of creating an integration or how this relates to the associated get_integration and delete_integration tools. An agent is left with only the name and schema, which is inadequate for a potentially complex setup operation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (pageId, locationId, adAccountId), so the schema already conveys their meaning. The tool description does not add any supplementary semantic detail or clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether adAccountId is required for page-level integration). With high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Facebook integration'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the many other create_integration tools in the sibling list by including the platform. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on what 'integration' entails; the word 'Facebook' in the tool name does most of the disambiguation work, so the description itself is only marginally informative beyond that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ad_manager_google_create_integration or ad_manager_li_create_integration. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer it over the corresponding get_integration or delete_integration tools. An agent must infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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