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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: what is copied (active rewards) versus what is not (integrations, credentials), plus the fact that the output is a DRAFT. It stops short of noting that repeated calls create duplicates (non-idempotency) or any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, result state front-loaded, then the copy semantics, then the parameter resolution rule. No hedging or filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the operation's key semantics and the single parameter's resolution. Minor gaps remain around error/conflict behavior and explicit sibling routing, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents campaignId, its fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, and the ID-reuse behavior. The description restates the fallback rather than adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (clone) plus resource (GrowSurf program/campaign) and a concrete outcome: a new DRAFT program. It also disambiguates GrowSurf's 'program = campaign' terminology, which matters given both growsurf_create_campaign and growsurf_clone_campaign exist as siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: clone duplicates an existing campaign's configuration rather than building a new one from scratch, which contrasts with growsurf_create_campaign. However no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition is stated.

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