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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the result is a DRAFT, that 'nothing is sent', and that audience fidelity is partial (company-based only, no CRM branch). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the original is touched, but the key side-effect profile is stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and naming behavior, then the caveat and verification step. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: draft state, absence of sending, audience limitation, and a verification step. Only secondary details like permissions or the returned identifier are unstated, which is minor.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a UUID from list_campaigns. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (copy) and resource (campaign), and pins the scope: settings plus audience, into a new DRAFT with a defined naming convention. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from create_campaign or duplicate_agent 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 states the post-copy condition ('check get_campaign of the copy before launching') and a key limitation ('re-uses company-based audiences only and has no CRM branch'), which shapes when this copy is usable. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for cases where CRM branches matter, but the caveat effectively serves as a when-not signal.

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