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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds genuinely useful context about the spending/deletion approval protocol and requestId reuse for outcome recovery. The phrase 'Claim live only when status is active' is opaque and underexplained, keeping it from 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short, but the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is a bare reference that carries no actionable meaning for the agent. The terse fragment 'Claim live only when status is active' also spends words without conveying a clear rule.

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?

It adequately covers the safety-critical confirm flow for a destructive, spending-related mutation with no output schema and ten parameters. It leaves the duplication semantics unexplained — what deepCopy does, how renaming is configured, and what the resulting campaign's status/claim state will be.

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 only 60%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema: confirm and requestId are already documented in their own field descriptions, and the eight nested payload parameters (deepCopy, statusOption, renameStrategy, startTime/endTime, syncAfter, renamePrefix/Suffix) are not mentioned at all. For a duplication tool where deep-copy vs. shallow semantics and rename strategy drive the outcome, this is a substantial gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a campaign'), matching the title exactly, so an agent can distinguish it from create_ad_campaign or update_ad_campaign. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from its close siblings duplicate_ad and duplicate_ad_set beyond the resource noun, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a real workflow gate: preview first, then an owner-approved confirm:true reusing the same requestId. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this over create_ad_campaign (clone vs. build fresh) or duplicate_ad_set, and never states prerequisites such as account selection.

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