meta_ads_conversions_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes 'Mutating on Meta's side — events become part of the pixel's attribution stream' and describes the return format ('events_received and messages'). This transparently conveys the side effects of the mutation, though it could mention permission requirements or rate limits, which are absent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential guidance (alternatives, mutation, response). Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity of the tool (batch events, nested objects) and no output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, usage guidance, mutation side effects, and return values. It lacks explicit error-handling details or auth requirements, but the rich input schema compensates for parameter-level completeness, and the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about using the tool for arbitrary event names and mentions the response structure, but it does not add param-level semantics beyond the schema. It correctly avoids 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 clearly states the tool 'Sends a batch of arbitrary conversion events to the Meta Conversions API' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming dedicated helpers (meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase, send_lead) for common event types, making its purpose as a generic fallback unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'For common event types prefer the dedicated meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase or send_lead helpers... For other event names (AddToCart, InitiateCheckout, CompleteRegistration, custom events) use this generic tool.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, with no ambiguity.

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