mureo_state_set_conversion_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains replacement semantics (complete set, not additive), how overlapping aliases can't double-count, that passing an empty list clears the override, that it's stored persistently, and that it returns the updated state document. No contradictions.

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 dense and each sentence adds substantive information, but it is longer than necessary. It front-loads the core purpose and then logically flows through usage, semantics, tips, and return values. No fluff, but not as tightly concise as the two-sentence gold standard.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, replacement semantics, clearing, storage location, persistence, and return value. It also provides a practical tip to avoid typos, making it fully actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the higher-level semantics of conversion_action_types (complete set overriding defaults, preventing double-counting) and reinforces the platform key uniqueness. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already are detailed, but the description enriches the mental model.

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 its purpose: declaring which Meta Insights action_type rows count as this account's conversions, overriding mureo's built-in generic set. It uses a specific verb ('Declare') and resource ('Meta Insights action_type rows') and distinguishes itself from sibling state tools by focusing on conversion override logic.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when an advertiser uses custom pixel events or when the account emits only component rows. It also provides practical guidance (call meta_ads_insights_report first to verify exact strings, confirm with operator) and explains clearing behavior, giving clear usage context.

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