Duplicate campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the copy is a fresh, editable draft with its own id, and duplicating is non-destructive to the original. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar low.

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?

Four labeled, front-loaded sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when), each one sentence with no filler. The negative guidance and return format are surfaced before an agent would need to dig.

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?

There is no output schema, so the 'Returns' note (the new draft including its own id) usefully covers the response. For a low-complexity, one-parameter tool the definition supplies purpose, exclusions, and return shape, leaving no material gap.

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?

A single parameter (id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics; baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the id and only implicitly frames it as the source campaign, which the schema title already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (copy/duplicate) and resource (campaign), and specifies what is carried over: content and audience settings. It distinguishes itself from sibling write operations like plunk_create_campaign (new) and send operations like plunk_send_campaign (re-send), so an agent can select it without opening another schema.

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 'Use when' and 'Not for' clauses give clear positive and negative guidance ('Basing a new send on one that worked' vs 'Sending the same campaign again to the same people'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. plunk_send_campaign) explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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