meta_exchange_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token validity duration and platform-specific endpoints, but does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. The behavior is adequately described for a simple exchange, but lacks depth.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action and including key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the tool's purpose, token lifetime, platform endpoints, and prerequisite. It is complete enough for a straightforward token exchange, though it could explicitly state that a new long-lived token is returned.

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 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds context about platform-specific endpoints and the required secret, but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: exchanging a short-lived token for a long-lived token with a validity of ~60 days. It specifies platform-specific endpoints (Instagram or Threads), which is specific and helps distinguish from other token-related tools like meta_refresh_token, though it does not explicitly differentiate 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 implies when to use this tool (to exchange tokens) and mentions a requirement (META_APP_SECRET). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like meta_refresh_token, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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