duplicar_campania

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the clone includes ad sets and ads and is created in PAUSED state. However, it does not mention the optional 'deepCopy' parameter or its default behavior, nor any limitations or side effects. The description provides basic behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second specifies the resulting state. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description effectively communicates the core operation: cloning a campaign with its ads and setting the copy to paused. It lacks details like the original being unchanged or the copy getting a new ID, but these are minor omissions for a well-understood cloning operation.

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% (only deepCopy has a description). The tool description does not explicitly describe parameters but implies the meaning of 'campaignId' (the campaign to clone) and suggests deep copy via 'con sus ad sets y ads'. This adds some context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 'Clona' (clones) and the resource 'campaña existente' (existing campaign), and specifies the scope 'con sus ad sets y ads' (with its ad sets and ads) and the resulting state 'PAUSED'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'crear_campania' which creates from scratch, and 'pausar_campania' which only changes state.

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 usage: use it to clone an existing campaign including its ad sets and ads. It does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or compare to alternatives like 'crear_campania'. The guidance is implied by the tool's purpose, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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