meta_ads_conversions_send_purchase

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

With no annotations, the description correctly and explicitly discloses that the operation is 'Mutating on Meta's side' and describes the return value as 'Meta's events_received acknowledgement.' It also discloses important client-side behavior: mureo hashes PII fields with SHA-256 before sending and instructs users not to pre-hash. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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, each earning its place: purpose + return value, mutation statement, and alternative guidance. No filler, front-loaded, and highly scannable.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return acknowledgement, mutation type, and sibling differentiation. The detailed schema descriptions handle parameter semantics, making the overall package complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. A small gap is the absence of explicit error handling or fallback behavior, but this does not compromise primary usage.

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%, so the schema already provides full semantics for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond a general note that 'required fields model a typical purchase' and that user identifiers are hashed (which is also in the schema). This meets the baseline for schema-rich tools.

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 and resource: 'Sends a single Purchase event via the Meta Conversions API.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming meta_ads_conversions_send_lead and meta_ads_conversions_send for other event types, making its scoped purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool ('the most common CAPI use case') and provides clear when-not guidance: 'For other event types use meta_ads_conversions_send_lead (leads) or the generic meta_ads_conversions_send (AddToCart / custom events / batching multiple events).' This is an explicit alternative recommendation.

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