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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it only copies structure, not media ('Every source ad keeps its own TikTok provider creative; live media is often not API-reusable'), that it requires an approval step ('One approval and one serialized task journal'), and details scheduling behavior ('Optional execution.start_time/end_time replaces the source launch schedule...'). These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage conditions, source constraints, media caveat, approval/journal, and scheduling. It front-loads the primary purpose and usage, then adds constraints. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (structural clone, approval flow, scheduling, media limitations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, how to specify sources, copy count, scheduling semantics, and behavioral caveats. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. It explains the mutual exclusivity of source_campaign_id/source_adgroup_id, the copy count range (1..5), and the meaning of execution.start_time/end_time. It does not explicitly describe advertiser_id, but that is a common context parameter. The description adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a same-advertiser TikTok campaign or native ad-group structural clone from live TikTok structure') and distinguishes it from alternative flows (new launches via creatives_list + campaigns_quick_create). The scope is explicit and it is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like copy_ad_quick_copy.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for use: 'Use only when the user explicitly asks to clone an existing campaign/ad group' and explicitly names the alternative for new launches. It also specifies constraints like 'No cross-advertiser transfer' and 'Provide exactly one source_campaign_id or source_adgroup_id', leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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