meta_refresh_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool uses platform-specific endpoints (Instagram and Threads), returns a token valid for 60 days, and requires the token to be at least 24h old. It does not mention if the old token is invalidated or any rate limits, but overall provides key behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by endpoint details and return value. Every sentence is valuable and concise.

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 token refresh tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, constraints, and return value. It does not mention error cases or validation checks, which would be helpful but not strictly necessary given the sibling tool set (e.g., meta_debug_token for validity).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; both parameters ('long_lived_token' and 'platform') are adequately described in the schema, and the description merely restates the platform enum values.

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 refreshes a long-lived token and specifies it must be at least 24h old. It distinguishes from potential siblings like meta_exchange_token by mentioning 'refresh' and the age requirement, but does not explicitly differentiate from meta_debug_token or other token tools.

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 a conditional 'must be at least 24h old' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like meta_exchange_token or meta_debug_token. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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