replicate_campaign

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

Discloses that it works on campaigns of any status, creates a new draft in 'save' status, respects read-only and dry-run modes, requires API key authentication, and is subject to Mailchimp rate limits. No annotations are present, so the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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 sections for purpose, usage, args, returns, and example. While informative, it could be slightly more concise; however, all content is valuable and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and only one parameter with no schema description, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, return values, and an example. The output schema is effectively documented in the text.

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 only parameter, campaign_id, is fully described with an example value and source (list_campaigns). The schema had no description, so the description adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 clones an existing campaign into a new draft with identical settings, recipients, and content. It distinguishes from create_campaign and update_campaign, making its specific purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (reuse a successful campaign) and when not (use create_campaign for building from scratch). Also provides guidance on modifying the copy before sending using update_campaign and set_campaign_content.

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