Create a new offline conversion data set for a Meta ad account so you can organize offline event data by name, account ID, and description.
Create a new offline conversion data set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Event set name | |
| account_id | No | Ad account ID to create the event set in (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted. | |
| description | No | Event set description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Input schema / properties / account_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ad account ID to create the event set in (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a create mutation; it does not disclose required auth, duplicate-name handling, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to existing data.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and zero-waste, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully helpful.
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?
For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and any sense of how the created set relates to offline event sending, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation operation.
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 the schema already documents name, account_id, and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action itself, 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?
States a specific verb and resource: create a new offline conversion data set. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like list_offline_event_sets or send_offline_event, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or an existing account), and no alternatives named. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right tool for setting up offline conversion tracking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.