clone_ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'duplicate' implies a write operation, it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens to the original ad. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate—it should describe more about the cloning process and 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It avoids unnecessary words and doesn't repeat the tool name. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., 'Creates a copy of an existing ad...'), but as-is, it's 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description. However, for a tool that duplicates ads, more context on behavior, parameters, and usage relative to siblings would improve completeness.

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 0%, meaning parameter titles are generic (e.g., 'Ad Id', 'Target Ad Set Id'). The description adds no semantic context about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'ad_id' refers to, how 'name_suffix' is applied, or what 'new_status' options exist. With 7 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about their meanings and usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Duplicate an ad using Meta's local Graph copy edge.' It specifies the verb ('duplicate') and resource ('an ad'), and mentions the underlying mechanism ('Meta's local Graph copy edge'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clone_ad_creative' or 'clone_ad_set', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'clone_ad' over 'create_ad' or 'update_ad', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools available (e.g., create_ad, update_ad, clone_ad_creative), this lack of context is a significant gap.

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