ads_duplicate_adset

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deep copy option but fails to disclose that the duplicated ad set is paused by default (status_option), that confirmation may be required (confirm), or that rename options exist. It does not describe side effects on the source ad set or required permissions. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 that is front-loaded with the main action, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters. While the sentence is efficient, it does not cover essential aspects like defaults or options, making it too terse rather than appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It is far from complete: it omits explanations of most parameters, the default behavior (e.g., PAUSED status), the need for confirmation, and any return values. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description is inadequate.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies one parameter (deep_copy) via 'optionally including all ads inside it', leaving confirm, adset_id, status_option, and rename_options unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's raw parameter names and does not help the agent understand what these parameters control.

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 clearly states the action ('Duplicate an ad set') and the resource (ad set), and it differentiates from sibling tools like ads_duplicate_campaign and ads_duplicate_ad by mentioning the optional inclusion of ads. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need a copy of an ad set), and the phrase 'optionally including all ads inside it' suggests a key decision point. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing adset_id), or how it compares to alternatives like ads_duplicate_campaign or ads_create_adset. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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