duplicate_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose a real behavioral trait (the copy is created PAUSED by default, with the automation rationale), which is non-obvious and valuable. However, it omits auth requirements (the access_token param), the write/create nature of the operation, and what deep_copy's default of true actually causes.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the caveat. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the five undocumented parameters (notably deep_copy's default of true) leave an agent without enough to call the tool confidently. The definition is thin for a tool that mutates state.

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% across five parameters, and the description names none of them. 'Created paused by default' gestures at status_option but never ties it to the parameter, and new_name, deep_copy, and access_token are entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (Meta campaign) plus the mechanism (Graph API), which is enough to separate it from create_campaign and update_campaign. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings or clarifying that it copies an existing campaign's configuration rather than authoring a new one.

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?

Implies the automation use case (safe duplication the caller can verify before enabling delivery) but never states when to pick this over create_campaign or when duplication is inappropriate. The rationale for rounding is left for the agent to infer.

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