Share Meta Pixel

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

Annotations are all false, placing full burden on the description. However, the description merely states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or whether the share can be revoked. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a complete behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element serves a purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or success indicators, but it does not. The optional 'response_format' parameter is not mentioned in the description. The description is incomplete for a share action, lacking context on what happens after sharing.

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 only 25% (only response_format has a description). The tool description adds brief labels (e.g., 'Pixel ID') but does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. This does not adequately compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Shares a pixel with another ad account,' which is a specific verb+resource+target action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_get_pixel, meta_create_pixel, etc., which handle other pixel operations.

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 implies usage when needing to grant another ad account access to a pixel, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or alternative methods. No exclusions are provided.

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