zuckerbot_duplicate_ad

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it succeeds strongly. It discloses that the tool is dry-run by default, that execute:true actually creates the ad, that the created ad is ALWAYS paused, that a new creative is always built, and that unsupported creative types are rejected with the unsupported feature named.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the main action, then steps through execution behavior, safety-relevant paused state, source-shape constraints, and finally a named sibling alternative, all without unnecessary fluff.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the return shape, success path, failure modes for unsupported creatives, idempotency, cross-account restriction, and post-creation behavior. There is no obvious gap that would leave an agent guessing on how to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying supported source shapes for the source_ad_id, explaining that creative IDs are never reused, and tying execute/idempotency_key together as a paired behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Duplicate ONE supported ad into an existing ad set in the SAME ad account." It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with zuckerbot_create_ad and zuckerbot_upload_ad_asset. The supported-source limitations further clarify exactly what this tool operates on.

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 tool makes clear when to use it and when not to: it is for duplicating existing ads, while zuckerbot_upload_ad_asset + zuckerbot_create_ad is the named alternative for introducing brand-new assets. The dry-run vs. execute path and the required idempotency_key usage are also explicitly described.

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