growsurf_clone_campaign

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

Beyond the annotations (mutation, non-destructive), the description adds key behaviors: integrations/credentials are not copied, active rewards are copied, and the resulting program is a DRAFT. This informs the agent of the tool's side effects and scope, which is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, then caveats about exclusions and defaults. Every sentence adds information; no wasted words or repetitive phrasing.

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 the tool's purpose, parameter default, and critical behavioral nuances (what is not copied). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It does not mention edge cases or side effects on the original, but for a clone operation this is sufficient.

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 schema already fully documents the campaignId parameter, including its default behavior and how to obtain it. The description merely restates this ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Clone'), the resource ('GrowSurf program (campaign)'), and the outcome (a new DRAFT program). It also details what is and isn't copied, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign or update_campaign by focusing on duplication.

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?

The description implies the use case (duplicating an existing program) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it. It avoids mentioning that this is for cloning rather than creating from scratch, leaving the agent to infer from the verb 'clone'.

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