create_conversion_event_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the mutating nature ('Create'), the linkage mechanism, and prerequisites ('Requires name + event_type + source_ids'), but it doesn't disclose the response or return value, behavior on duplicate settings, validation of source_ids against existing pixels, or default attribution-window behavior.

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, usage context, and prerequisites. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 operation with no output schema, the description should hint at what is returned (presumably an ID destined for campaign conversion_event_setting_ids) and clarify ad_account_id, neither of which appears. The tool also sits in a chained workflow (create_conversion_pixel → this → create_campaign), so the missing return-value information is a real gap, though invocation-level details are otherwise solid.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, placing this at baseline 3. The description reinforces the three required parameters and frames event_type + source_ids as the core linkage, but it adds little per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; ad_account_id remains undocumented in both description and schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a conversion event setting') and clarifies the mechanism ('linking an event type to source pixel(s)'). The usage context ('Used for conversions bidding...') differentiates it from adjacent siblings such as create_conversion_pixel, create_conversion_api_key, and list_conversion_event_settings.

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 gives clear context for when this is needed: conversions bidding (bidding_type=conversions) and conversion_event_setting_ids on campaigns, and it states the required inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use create_conversion_pixel instead), so it stops short of the highest bar.

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