Set Page Instant Reply

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the reply is sent immediately when someone messages the page, and page tokens must be loaded first via meta_list_pages. This gives the agent a clearer operational picture than the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a prerequisite and a concise param list. The Args block somewhat duplicates the schema, but it is short and useful for quick comprehension, so the structure remains efficient.

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 simple setter with four parameters, this description is largely complete: it explains the tool's behavior, names the required parameters, defaults, and a key prerequisite. It does not describe the return value or error scenarios, but with no output schema and simple semantics, the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the three main parameters (page_id, message, enabled) with definitions essentially matching the schema, and omits response_format entirely. It adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the instant reply message for a Facebook Page' and explains the behavior ('automatic message sent immediately when someone messages the page'). It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like meta_set_away_message or meta_set_greeting, but the instant-reply concept is precise enough to differentiate it in most cases.

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 important usage context by explaining what the instant reply is and when it fires. It also states an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires: meta_list_pages called first to load page tokens.' It does not discuss when to prefer this tool over related automated-response tools, but the context provided is clear and actionable.

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