Comment on your own Facebook post

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical context: the comment is PUBLIC and posted as the brand, the user must approve the exact wording first, and the tool refuses Instagram media ids by name. It also explains the rationale behind the tactic (reach suppression), giving the agent a deeper understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 three sentences long but packs in the core action, the tactical rationale, public visibility, a user-approval requirement, the source of postId, the Facebook-only restriction, and even the cost ('Free'). It front-loads the action and avoids any filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: which posts are eligible, how the comment is posted (publicly as the brand), that user confirmation is needed, where the postId comes from, and why Instagram is not supported. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful pointer – postId comes from list_meta_posts – but does not extend meaning beyond that for message or attachmentUrl, and no parameter is left ambiguous by schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Leave'), a specific resource ('the brand’s own Facebook Page posts'), and clarifies it is a NEW top-level comment, distinguishing it from replies (reply_to_meta_comment) and post creation (post_to_meta). It also explicitly notes it is for the brand's own posts, eliminating ambiguity about which posts are eligible.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: the 'link in the first comment' tactic, adding a pinned clarification, offer code, or correction. It explicitly excludes Instagram ('FACEBOOK ONLY') and names the correct alternative for Instagram replies (reply_to_meta_comment), so an agent knows exactly when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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