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 the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is 'Mutating on Meta's side' and states the return value: 'Returns Meta's events_received acknowledgement.' This is solid transparency, though it doesn't cover rate limits, idempotency, or auth prerequisites.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and return value, then usage context, then sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the essential context: what it does, that it's mutating, what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from related tools. No output schema exists, but the return value is described. Some minor aspects like error handling or rate limits are absent, but overall it's sufficiently complete given the rich schema and sibling context.

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 description coverage is 100% with rich per-parameter details (e.g., hashing behavior in user_data, act_ prefix requirement for account_id). The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Sends a single Lead event via the Meta Conversions API') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase and meta_ads_conversions_send for other event types. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 states when to use ('form submissions, trial signups, demo requests') and explicitly redirects to alternatives: 'For money-moving events use meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase. For non-standard event names use meta_ads_conversions_send.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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