zuckerbot_capi_test

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Logs as a test event (does not affect real attribution)' and implies the event is sent to Meta Graph API but as a synthetic test. This adequately conveys non-destructive behavior, though more detail on side effects or permissions could strengthen transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and purpose; the second adds a critical behavioral disclaimer and usage suggestion. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core idea.

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?

Given all 8 parameters are optional, schema coverage is 100%, and no output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, a key behavioral trait, and the testing nature. It does not mention expected output or error scenarios, but is adequate for a straightforward test tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'verify raw passthrough') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions of each property.

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 'Send a synthetic CAPI test event' and explicitly distinguishes from real event sending (e.g., zuckerbot_send_capi_event) by noting 'does not affect real attribution' and 'Logs as a test event'. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings.

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 advises 'Use after setting up or updating CAPI config to confirm events are flowing', giving clear context for when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly exclude other uses, but the guidance is sufficient for a testing tool among related CAPI siblings.

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