Rename or reconfigure a Meta product catalog

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

Annotations provide only basic flags (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds crucial behavioral detail: Meta always returns {"success":true} even when ignoring a field, so the tool performs a fresh read-back to verify changes and reports unconfirmed values as 'NOT confirmed.' This explains the actual API behavior and the tool's mitigation, going far beyond the annotations. It also notes the zero-cost nature.

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?

Although long, every sentence carries weight. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the list of additional settings, the permanent constraints, and the critical note about the 200 response and read-back. The all-caps 'THE 200 IS NOT THE ANSWER' is emphatic and memorable. The structure is efficient given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what can be changed, what cannot (vertical, portfolio), how success is verified via read-back, the silent-failure scenario, and the cost. It addresses the biggest risk (false success) and tells the agent exactly what to expect, making it highly complete.

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 descriptions cover all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of defaultImageUrl and fallbackImageUrl (fallback for product images) and grouping the settings objects (dynamic-ad, destination/flight/store/partner-integration) into travel/local-inventory scenarios. This supplements the generic schema descriptions without redundant repetition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Change') and a precise resource ('a product catalog's settings'), clearly identifying the operation. It enumerates the settings it can modify (name, image URLs, display settings, travel/local-inventory settings) and explicitly states what cannot be changed (VERTICAL, business portfolio), which cleanly distinguishes it from create, delete, and list 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 makes the primary use case obvious: updating an existing catalog's settings. It warns that vertical and business portfolio are immutable, preventing attempts to change them. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_meta_catalog or delete_meta_catalog, but the context and sibling list make the intended use clear.

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