Clone Program

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: integrations and credentials are NOT copied while active rewards ARE, and the output is a DRAFT rather than a live program. It stops short of noting that repeated calls produce multiple drafts (relevant to idempotentHint=false) or any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result state, with the copy semantics placed before the id-targeting detail. Slightly redundant with the schema on the campaignId default, but no wasted framing.

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 explained, and the description covers the two things an agent most needs for a mutating clone: what state the result is in (DRAFT) and what is/isn't carried over. The one notable omission is the non-idempotent consequence of calling it more than once.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the schema description already documents the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback. The description's targeting sentence therefore restates schema content rather than adding format, validation, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Clone your GrowSurf program (campaign)') and specifies the resulting state ('new DRAFT program'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby growsurf_create_campaign sibling, so the agent must infer that cloning differs from creating from scratch.

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?

Usage is only implied: you clone an existing program when you want a duplicate draft. There is no statement of when to prefer this over growsurf_create_campaign, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The targeting sentence describes which id is used, not when the tool is appropriate.

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