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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the result is a new DRAFTED campaign, leads are not copied, the copied sequence preserves original messaging, and sequence_update edits are reverted at launch on an unlaunched duplicate.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers usage, exclusions, and limitations in four purposeful sentences. Every sentence contributes actionable selection or invocation guidance, with no repetition.

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 one-parameter duplication tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, when not to use it, alternatives, and important behavioral limitations. The one minor gap is that it does not state what the tool returns, such as the new campaign identifier, but the selection and invocation guidance is otherwise complete.

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%, and the schema already documents campaignId as the existing campaign obtained from campaign_list. The description reinforces that it must be one specific existing campaign but adds no new syntax or format semantics beyond the schema.

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: copy an existing campaign's settings and whole sequence into a new DRAFTED campaign, without leads. It also explicitly distinguishes this from campaign_create and sequence_update, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit ONLY condition — when the user asks to duplicate a campaign they have named — and directly names campaign_create as the alternative for starting fresh. It further clarifies that a duplicate is only useful when the existing copy is meant to be kept, which rules out misuse for sequence editing.

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