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

Annotations already declare destructive=false and readOnly=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what is copied (audience, sequence, settings), what is omitted (no enrolments), and the safety property that nothing sends until launch. It does not explain the confirm guard or idempotency, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and result, with the no-send guarantee as supporting context. No 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is created and the safety profile adequately. It leaves the return value (presumably the new draft's id) unstated, a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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 100% and both params (campaign_id, confirm) are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (copy/duplicate) and resource (campaign) and immediately scopes the result as a new DRAFT with same audience/sequence/settings. An agent can distinguish it from create_campaign_draft, launch_campaign, and update_campaign_settings without opening a 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?

The 'Nothing is sent until the copy is launched' clause implies the draft-state context and contrasts implicitly with launch_campaign, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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