Update Facebook Post

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. It does not mention side effects (e.g., replacing the entire message), permission requirements, or rate limits. No contradiction, but no added value.

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, stating the function in one sentence followed by a concise parameter list. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., adding 'response_format' to the list).

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 update operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and clearly states the action. It lacks context on authentication requirements, potential limitations (e.g., restricted post types), and the response_format option (though present in schema). Given the complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description provides brief semantic hints for the three primary parameters: post_id (Post ID), page_id (Page ID for token), and message (New message text). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type information. However, it omits the response_format parameter entirely, though that is documented in the schema with an enum and description. Schema coverage is low (25%), so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the tool updates an existing Facebook Page post's message text. This is a specific verb (updates), a specific resource (Facebook Page post), and the exact action (message text). It distinguishes from siblings like meta_create_post (creates new) and meta_delete_post (deletes) because it explicitly says 'existing'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for existing posts but does not state exclusions (e.g., not for creating new posts) or mention prerequisites like permissions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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