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

Annotations flag the mutation profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds crucial context annotations can't: the clone starts as a DRAFT with no contacts, no consent and no program link, and archived campaigns are acceptable sources. It stops short of explaining why the operation is flagged destructive or what happens on failure, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads what gets copied and then the follow-up workflow. Every clause earns its place, though the packed semicolon structure is slightly harder to scan than cleanly separated sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating 'The answer has the new campaign.' Combined with the draft state and follow-up steps, an agent has everything needed to clone and continue the workflow.

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 100%: campaign_id's provenance is documented and the title default ('the title plus " - Copia"') appears in the schema too. The description therefore adds nothing new about parameters, which matches the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) plus exactly what is copied — AI line and settings, calling window, pacing, attempts — and what the result is (a new DRAFT). An agent can distinguish this from create_voice_campaign and update_voice_campaign without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller: after cloning, add contacts with add_voice_campaign_contacts, then launch it. Also states the eligibility condition ('Any outbound AI campaign can be cloned, archived ones too'), so the agent knows which source campaigns are valid.

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