meta_ads_conversions_send_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the tool is 'mutating on Meta's side' and returns an 'events_received acknowledgement'. However, it does not mention potential side effects like event deduplication (though hinted in pixel_id param), rate limits, or error behavior. The mutation disclosure is sufficient for a 4 but lacks richer 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?

Four sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return value, mutation nature, and usage boundaries. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 6 parameters (3 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the high-level context well (when to use, basic behavior). However, it omits details about response format, error handling, or rate limits. Given the schema's richness, the description is mostly complete but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including constraints and examples. The tool description adds little beyond stating the event type and use context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 single Lead event via the Meta Conversions API, specifies the return acknowledgement, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (send_purchase for money-moving events, send for non-standard events). The verb 'sends' and resource 'Lead event' are specific and 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?

Explicitly lists appropriate use cases (form submissions, trial signups, demo requests) and provides clear exclusion criteria: for money-moving events use meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase, for non-standard event names use meta_ads_conversions_send. This gives agents precise when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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