Clone Campaign Structure & Hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal key behavior: deep copy, new campaign created in paused state by default, and overridable settings. However, it omits important operational details such as return value, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, source campaign preservation, and the unsupported 'flight dates' override is misleading.

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 only two sentences, with the core behavior and default state front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, but the second sentence's vague reference to 'flight dates' is both unsupported and imprecise, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The schema fills many gaps, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., new campaign ID), the effect of include_ads=false, or other end-state details. The misleading 'flight dates' reference further reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. Yet the description adds a potentially misleading claim about overriding 'flight dates,' which has no corresponding parameter in the schema (additionalProperties is false). This actively undermines correct parameter usage, outweighing the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('deep-copies') and resource ('existing campaign along with all its child ad groups and ads'), making the tool's function obvious. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_campaign or update_campaign.

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 usage through emphasis on cloning an entire hierarchy, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't name sibling tools or provide selection criteria, so usage must be inferred.

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