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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them. It discloses same-advertiser-only transfer, one approval and one serialized task journal, media reuse limitations, and precise execution-time replacement semantics. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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 a dense block, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers usage, constraints, and scheduling behavior. Nearly every sentence adds distinct operational value. It could be slightly more scannable, but it is appropriately sized for a complex clone-preparation tool.

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 complex prepare tool with confirm/deny siblings and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, constraints, and alternatives. It mentions approval and task journal behavior, which implies the confirmation flow, though it does not name the confirm/deny siblings explicitly. Overall it is nearly complete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning and does so well for the critical parameters: exactly one of source_campaign_id or source_adgroup_id, copies 1..5, and start/end time replacement rules. It does not explain advertiser_id or connection_context, leaving some gaps, but it compensates for most of the important inputs.

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: preparing a same-advertiser TikTok campaign or ad-group structural clone from live TikTok structure. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the new-launch path using creatives_list and campaigns_quick_create, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings. Scope is narrowed with 'same-advertiser' and 'from live TikTok structure'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user explicitly asks to clone an existing campaign or ad group. It also provides the alternative workflow for new launches and says 'not this tool,' which is direct routing. Additional constraints like providing exactly one source ID and copies 1..5 further constrain usage.

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