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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the copy is created PAUSED, deep-copy is limited to 3 objects per call (error 100/subcode 1885194), the tool auto-chunks oversized deep copies and reports deep_copy:'chunked', and rename_prefix behavior is described.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before edge cases, and each sentence adds distinct information (paused state, limit, chunking, preview). It is dense and slightly long, but nothing is redundant.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still notes the result reports chunked versus non-chunked copies. For a 6-param mutation tool it is nearly complete, with only the obvious account/entity identifiers and connection prerequisites left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it documents meaningful semantics for kind, deep_copy, rename_prefix, and confirm (including default-driven preview behavior). account_id and entity_id are left implicit, but they are self-evident identifiers, so this is a strong rather than complete compensation.

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+resource ('Copies a Meta campaign/ad set/ad') and anchors it to the real-world Ads Manager 'Duplicate' action, which removes any ambiguity for an agent choosing among the many create_/update_/delete_meta_* 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?

Explains when deep_copy applies (campaign/ad set with children), what confirm=false does, and the valid kind values, giving clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., create_meta_campaign) for cases where duplication is not wanted, so it stops short of a 5.

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