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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: it creates a new ad copy, has no order sync, and returns a specific payload where integrationId belongs to the new clone. It does not detail every possible side effect, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden and the description handles the essentials.

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 dense sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The return payload and parameter semantics are packed into the final sentence without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place and no space is wasted.

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 two-parameter clone operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope versus marketplaces, both parameters, conditional project_id handling, and the exact return payload. The only minor omission is explicitly naming clone_marketplace as the alternative, but the marketplace exclusion is already stated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It clearly identifies ad_id as the source ad from list_ads and explains project_id's optionality with the conditional requirement to call list_projects. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with the specific action 'Clone an ad' and defines it as creating a copy of settings and configuration as a new ad. It explicitly distinguishes ads from marketplaces, which differentiates this tool from clone_marketplace and create_ad without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 says ad_id comes from list_ads and explains when project_id is optional versus when the agent should call list_projects. It implicitly excludes marketplaces by stating ads are not marketplaces, though it does not explicitly name clone_marketplace as the alternative tool.

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