zuckerbot_pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that selecting a pixel sets it for all future conversion tracking and CAPI attribution, indicating a persistent side effect. It does not mention destructive actions or permissions, but the mutation is clearly described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently covers both listing and optional selection with its consequences. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail the output format when listing or after selection (e.g., list structure, confirmation message). It also omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid pixel ID). For a low-complexity tool, it provides adequate but not complete context.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description essentially restates the parameter's purpose from the schema ('If provided, selects this Meta Pixel ID for conversion tracking. If omitted, lists all available pixels.'). It adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'Meta Pixels', specifying the context 'on the currently selected ad account'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pixel listing and selection, which is unique among the listed 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list available pixels or optionally select one. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for pixel management.

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