meta_ads_pixels_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating, not automatically reversible, pixels cannot be deleted via Graph API once created, and recommends recording before-state. It also mentions pixel limits and post-creation verification steps. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return value, then provides essential behavioral and usage guidance in four compact sentences. Every sentence adds operational value—pre-check, irreversibility/logging, and post-creation verification—without unnecessary filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return value, side effects, prerequisites, irreversible nature, and follow-up actions. It gives an agent everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and avoid common mistakes.

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% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions (name purpose and account_id format/fallback). The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it mostly contributes operational context rather than parameter detail, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('Meta Pixel on the ad account'), and states the return value ('Returns the new pixel id'). It clearly distinguishes this create tool from sibling tools like meta_ads_pixels_list, meta_ads_pixels_get, meta_ads_pixels_stats, and meta_ads_pixels_events.

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 instructs to call meta_ads_pixels_list first to check for existing pixels due to pixel limits and preference for reuse. It also directs to use meta_ads_pixels_stats / events after creation to confirm the pixel is firing, and suggests mureo_state_action_log_append for auditability. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative actions.

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