Create Facebook Page Event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation), so the burden on the description is reduced. The description adds no further behavioral details—it does not disclose side effects (e.g., the event becomes public), idempotency implications (repeated calls may create duplicates), or permission requirements. It merely states the action, which is minimally additive.

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 a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured argument list. It is efficient and contains no filler. The argument list is slightly verbose for a schema that already defines types, but it consolidates the information in a readable format. The structure is well organized and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., an event ID) or at least hint at the response format. It does not. It also omits the response_format parameter, which is part of the schema. While it covers the main input parameters, it lacks return-value details and any caveats about event visibility or timezone handling, making it only partially complete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It lists most parameters with types and uses, notably specifying ISO 8601 format for start_time and end_time, and clarifying optionality for several. However, it omits the response_format parameter entirely and does not mention constraints like end_time being after start_time, so it is not exhaustive. Overall, it adds meaningful value beyond the 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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Creates an event on a Facebook Page.' It names the exact resource (Facebook Page event) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_create_post and meta_create_photo_post, which target different content types. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or conditions that would make this tool preferable to alternatives like meta_create_post or meta_create_live_video. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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