Copy an existing ad set into the same or a different campaign, preserving its targeting, budget, and configuration.
Clone an existing ad set to the same or different campaign. Copies targeting, budget, and all configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | No | Name for the new ad set. Default: "{original_name} (Copy)" | |
| sourceAdSetId | Yes | Ad set ID to clone | |
| targetCampaignId | Yes | Campaign ID to create the clone in (can be same as source) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the core effect: copying targeting, budget, and configuration. But it does not disclose whether the source remains unchanged, whether the new ad set is active or paused, or what response/errors to expect.
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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and includes the most relevant qualifier about target campaigns without repeating schema details.
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?
For a low-complexity three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context to choose and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of return-value or side-effect details, but this is minor given the simplicity of the operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter semantics. The description adds general context about what is copied but no parameter-specific details 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 states a specific action ('Clone') and resource ('an existing ad set'), and clarifies target scope ('same or different campaign'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cloneCampaign and other ad-set tools.
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 when to use the tool—whenever an ad set needs to be duplicated—and adds useful context about the target campaign. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as cloneCampaign or updateAdSet, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.