kadam_adv_copy_creatives

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the cartesian-product behavior (2 creatives x 2 targets = 4 copies), that originals are preserved, that copies start paused, and that they go through moderation. These are exactly the mutation-behavior facts an agent needs before calling a write tool.

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 tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain the copy semantics and constraints. No filler; the concrete 2x2=4 example earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious expansion rule.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, constraints, and post-copy state well. It stops short of noting the 50-target cap or what the call returns (e.g., new creative IDs), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not convey: the multiplicative relationship between creativeIds and targets, and the pause-after-copy outcome tied to pauseAfterModeration. It reinforces the url domain constraint already documented in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Copy creatives into other campaigns.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kadam_adv_move_creatives (originals retained vs moved) and kadam_adv_create_creative, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

It gives clear operational context and constraints (same ad format required, landing URL must stay on target domain), and 'originals are untouched' implicitly distinguishes copy from move. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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