cigchat_set_integration_meta_conversions_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the auth requirement and endpoint, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects, idempotency, or response behavior for a mutation operation, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence includes the purpose, endpoint, and auth scope, with no wasted words or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple with only two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action, endpoint, and auth. It could add more context, such as what config fields are affected or how to verify changes, but it is reasonably complete for the complexity.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (token, dataset_id) covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('config of Meta Conversions Api integration'), plus the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_ and clear_ tools by specifying 'Meta Conversions Api'.

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 states the required 'Manage Team' scope but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_integration_meta_conversions_api for reading or clear_integration_meta_conversions_api for clearing. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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