duplicate_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains key behaviors: deep_copy affects ad sets/ads, status_option controls the copy's state with PAUSED recommended, and the return JSON includes the new campaign ID. It doesn't discuss authentication or permissions, but the core behavioral aspects are disclosed.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, uses concise Spanish, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format adequately for a 5-parameter tool. It lacks any mention of access_token and does not elaborate on error conditions beyond 'el error de Meta', but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful explanations for campaign_id, deep_copy, status_option, and rename_suffix, including defaults and examples. However, it omits access_token entirely, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 it duplicates an existing campaign via the Meta /copies endpoint, and positions it as ideal for horizontal scaling. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like create_campaign and update_campaign.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Ideal para escalamiento horizontal (clonar una campaña que ya funciona)'), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the full 'when/when-not' guidance of a top-tier score.

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