direct.hf.clone_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two useful traits - the result is a 'draft' (not a live campaign) and the operation is '(best effort)' (partial results possible) - but it never explains the apply/dry_run preview-versus-commit semantics, what happens to assets/keywords that fail, or whether an existing campaign is modified.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, with no wasted clauses. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix is mildly decorative but does signal this is a high-level wrapper over direct.raw_call, which is real information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified: the draft-state and best-effort caveats are the only behavior communicated, and the clone scope (what exactly gets copied - adgroups, ads, keywords, bids?) is left undefined.

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?

Seven parameters with only 29% schema description coverage, and the description contributes zero parameter-level information. The undocumented apply, dry_run, new_name, campaign_id and campaign_name fields - the ones an agent most needs to understand for a clone operation - are explained nowhere in either the description or the 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?

The description gives a specific verb (clone) and resource (campaign structure) and states the output is a new draft campaign, which distinguishes it from direct.create_campaigns and the many other direct.* mutation tools by name and intent. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to clone versus building a campaign from scratch, nor any mention of prerequisites or the apply/dry_run workflow that the schema exposes. The only hint is the parenthetical '(best effort)', which tells the agent nothing about when to choose this tool.

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