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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the new campaign is created PAUSED, that R&F booking settings are dropped, and that only targeting, placements and creatives are copied. It also mandates a dry-run planning step, which is important behavioral context for a mutating 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 dense but well structured: it leads with the core copy behavior, then lists what is preserved vs replaced, then states the required dry-run workflow. It is appropriately sized for a complex duplication tool without excessive filler.

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 complex mutating tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts: paused output, copied fields, dropped R&F booking settings, and mandatory dry-run planning. The main remaining gap is that several optional parameters are not explained, but the core duplication contract is clear.

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 adds meaning for several parameters, notably that os can override copied targeting, that budget is per new ad squad, and that the objective/optimization goal/bid strategy are replaced. However, with only 50% schema description coverage across 14 parameters, it leaves account, folder, language, pixel_id, only_active_ads, and new_name largely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource: it copies a Snapchat campaign into a new paused campaign. It clearly distinguishes duplication from creation by describing exactly what is copied and what is replaced with new values.

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 concrete usage example ('make a sales campaign with the same ads and audience as campaign X') and a required workflow step ('Always run dry_run=true first'). It also explains the Reach & Frequency edge case, though it does not explicitly name when to choose this over snapchat_create_campaign or snapchat_launch_campaign.

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