replicate_campaign

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

Discloses that the new campaign is created in 'save' (draft) status, lists return fields, and provides an example. Annotations are minimal (non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds sufficient behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: starts with a clear purpose, then usage guidance, parameters, return format, and example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 it has an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to use, what to expect in return, and how to obtain required inputs. The missing account description is minor as it's optional and defaults to null.

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 'Args' section describes campaign_id with source and example, but the optional 'account' parameter is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters, but it leaves one undocumented, reducing helpfulness for the agent.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool clones a campaign into a new draft with identical settings, recipients, and content. It distinguishes from create_campaign and update_campaign, making the 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 successful campaign) and provides alternatives: create_campaign for from-scratch builds, update_campaign and set_campaign_content for modifications after cloning. Also notes it works on any campaign status.

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