Share Meta Pixel

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

Annotations provide no guidance (all hints are false), so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, such as whether sharing is additive or replaces existing share settings, what permissions are required, or if the operation is reversible. It also fails to mention that the response_format parameter controls output format, which is a behavioral aspect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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: one clear sentence followed by a list of parameters. There is no fluff, and the primary action is stated upfront. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret errors, or why business_id is required (likely for authorization). The presence of the response_format parameter is not acknowledged in the description, leaving the agent to guess its purpose. Given the tool's complexity as a sharing operation with multiple IDs, more contextual detail is needed.

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 description lists the three parameters with minimal glosses ('Pixel ID', 'Target ad account ID', 'Business ID') that essentially restate the parameter names. It adds the word 'Target' to ad_account_id, but otherwise does not explain the meaning or relationship of these parameters. For a low-coverage schema, the description fails to compensate by providing additional context or use-cases for each parameter.

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 action: 'Shares a pixel with another ad account.' This clearly identifies the resource (pixel) and the operation (sharing), distinguishing it from other pixel-related tools like meta_create_pixel or meta_get_pixel. The verb is precise and unambiguous.

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 context is implied: use this tool to share a pixel with another ad account. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like admin permissions or whether sharing overrides existing shares. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so it only meets the 'implied' level.

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