ad_manager_fb_duplicate_campaign

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what duplication entails (e.g., creates a new campaign with same settings), what happens to existing entities, or any side effects. The description provides zero value beyond the annotations, which are already minimal.

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 phrase, which is extremely under-specified. While it is front-loaded and has no wasted words, it lacks even the minimum necessary detail to be helpful. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as it omits critical information about the operation.

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 mutating operation with no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the result of duplication is, whether it copies ads, ad sets, or just the campaign settings, or any integration requirements. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone, making it incomplete in context.

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 50% (locationId has a description, campaignId does not). The description 'Duplicate campaign' adds no parameter information at all. It does not clarify what campaignId refers to or any constraints. Given the moderate schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving required parameters undocumented.

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 campaign' merely restates the tool name 'ad_manager_fb_duplicate_campaign' without adding any specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like duplicate_ad or duplicate_adset beyond the resource name, which is already in the tool name. This borders on tautology and provides no additional clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. With multiple sibling duplication tools (duplicate_ad, duplicate_adset), the lack of routing information leaves the agent without direction.

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