meta_ads_lead_forms_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is mutating, reversible via update with ARCHIVED status, and lists the fields that are lost in the duplication process. It also notes the source form is untouched. Lacks mention of authentication or rate limits, but overall provides strong transparency.

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 thorough but efficient. It opens with the main purpose, explains the workflow, details copied fields, the return value, reversibility, and explicitly lists what is lost. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation's purpose, what is copied, what is lost, and reversibility. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., verifying source form exists) or error conditions, but is otherwise comprehensive for a duplication tool.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context such as account_id falls back to environment variable, form_id is source, and new_name should be distinct. This adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'duplicates' and resource 'lead form', and specifies 'under the same (or another) Page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_ads_lead_forms_create by explaining that this is a copy operation, and it provides context about the lack of a native Meta endpoint.

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 effectively conveys when to use this tool (to duplicate a lead form) and what it copies. It mentions the lossy nature and advises re-creating advanced fields manually. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like meta_ads_lead_forms_create or state when not to use it.

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