clone_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or how the copy edge works. 'Duplicate' implies a write operation, but no safety or side-effect details are given.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and technical context, making it easy to parse despite lacking detail.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the cloning behavior, what gets copied by default, how authentication works via meta_access_token, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). The technical mention of 'Meta's local Graph copy edge' adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what campaign_id refers to, the purpose of include_* flags, how name_suffix is applied, or the implications of copy_schedule and new_status. The description provides zero parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema titles.

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 verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a campaign'), specifying it uses Meta's local Graph copy edge. It distinguishes from create_campaign by indicating duplication rather than creation from scratch, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other clone_* tools.

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 versus alternatives like create_campaign or other clone_* tools. The description mentions the technical mechanism but offers no contextual usage advice, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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