meta_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states READ and WRITE capability, defaults to GET, and explains that POST creates/updates and DELETE removes. It also notes that the tool 'does anything the token's scopes allow', setting expectations about permissions. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or potential destructiveness, but the examples imply mutation risks.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key concept ('Meta Graph / Marketing API call — flexible escape hatch') and delivers all necessary behavioral and usage details efficiently.

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?

Given that the tool is a generic API caller with no output schema and fairly complete input schema documentation, the description provides sufficient context: it covers read/write/delete operations, default method, and example usage. It does not discuss the raw JSON response format, but that is a minor omission for a generic tool.

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 input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples of path and params usage for different methods (e.g., 'path=<campaignId>, params={status:'PAUSED'}'), explaining the default method behavior, and clarifying the role of params for reads vs writes. It does not fully detail the params object structure, but the schema already describes it.

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 it is a Meta Graph/Marketing API call that acts as a flexible escape hatch for arbitrary READ and WRITE operations. The verb 'does anything' combined with the method examples (GET, POST, DELETE) provides a specific scope. It is effectively distinguished from siblings, which are all specific high-level 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 indicates it is an 'escape hatch,' implying use when no specific sibling tool covers the need. It provides examples for POST and DELETE but lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or caveats.

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