ad_manager_fb_duplicate_adset

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

The annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention that duplicating creates a new ad set while preserving the original, what settings are copied, or what the response contains. With annotations covering the basic mutation profile, the description still fails to add any value about side effects or outcomes.

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 single short sentence, which is concise and avoids verbosity. However, it is so under-specified that it borders on useless. It is not bloated, but it also does not earn its place by conveying necessary 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain the tool's return value (e.g., the new ad set ID) and any side effects. It does neither. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly, providing no information about the outcome or expectations.

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?

The only parameter, adsetId, has zero schema description coverage, and the description also provides no explanation of its format, how to obtain it, or whether any additional parameters are implied. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess at the parameter's semantics beyond its name.

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 'Duplicate ad set' names the action (duplicate) and resource (ad set), which is clear at a basic level. However, it adds no detail about what duplication entails (e.g., does it create a new copy, copy targeting/budget, or require a name change?), and it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like duplicate_ad or duplicate_campaign beyond the resource type. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling duplication tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an existing ad set ID, required permissions, or whether an integration must exist). The agent is left with no information about selection criteria or invocation context.

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