graph_call

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: the version prefix is added automatically, confirm is required for POST and DELETE, and it distinguishes between params (query string) and data (body). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the provided details are meaningful and go beyond the schema.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then logically groups parameter explanations, and ends with three concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 low-level API caller with no output schema, the description provides sufficient invocation detail: methods, endpoint format, parameter types, and confirmation requirement. It lacks explicit mention of return values or pagination, but the standard behavior of a raw API call is implied, and the presence of graph_paginate as a sibling covers that gap somewhat.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains every parameter: method (GET/POST/DELETE), endpoint (path after version prefix with a key exclusion), params (query dict), data (body dict), and confirm (required for writes). Examples illustrate usage effectively, fully compensating for the schema silence.

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 'Call any Graph API endpoint directly,' which clearly identifies it as a generic, low-level API caller. This distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools like ads_pause_campaign or pages_publish_post, which target specific operations.

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 clearly implies this tool is for direct Graph API calls beyond the specialized high-level tools. It explains the context (call any endpoint) but does not explicitly state 'use specialized tools when available' or list exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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