meta_ads_lead_forms_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is mutating and not automatically reversible, recommends a rollback strategy, reveals Meta's mandatory fields (privacy_policy_url and follow_up_action_url), explains the write-only nature of context_card.cover_photo_id, and even cites the specific error subcode for a missing follow_up_action_url.

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 succinct yet information-dense. It opens with the core purpose and return value, then adds mutation warnings, parameter relationships, and Meta requirements—all without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure aids quick scanning for the most critical details.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return type, mutation side effects, rollback guidance, required Meta fields, error subcode, and parameter-specific behaviors (write-only, branching, higher-intent step count). This is comprehensive for a create operation with such a rich schema.

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?

While the schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, the tool description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains that questions are ordered, details CUSTOM question requirements (key, label, options), clarifies that thank_you_page does not replace follow_up_action_url, and describes the branching logic for conditional_questions_choices. This enriches the schema's static definitions with operational semantics.

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 'Creates a new lead form on a Facebook Page. Returns the new form_id.' This identifies the specific verb (creates), resource (lead form on a Facebook Page), and return value, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like lead_forms_list and lead_forms_update.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a lead form) and even advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append if rollback may be needed. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like update or list, but the creation purpose is unambiguous and the mutation warning is a useful guideline.

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