cloneCampaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates cloning creates new entities but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it duplicates budgets or requires specific permissions. It does not mention reversibility or errors that might occur.

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 concise, with only two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the budget adjustment (e.g., is it applied to the new campaign?), nor does it clarify the behavior of copyAdSets when set to false. Missing details about the expected outcome (e.g., response format, new campaign ID) would leave an agent uncertain.

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 all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the overall purpose but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what's in the schema. It adds minimal extra value for parameter semantics.

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 (campaign), and the scope (optionally clone ad sets). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cloneAdSet by focusing on campaigns. It is specific and 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?

It mentions it is useful for duplicating successful campaign structures, which implies a common use case. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or contrast with cloneAdSet, which is a close sibling. There is no mention of prerequisites like permissions.

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