Duplicate a campaign

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

Annotations only flag it as a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it produces an unpublished draft, the original is untouched, it requires an Idempotency-Key, and it lists required scopes. It also correctly signals non-idempotency implicitly by noting the key is needed for safe retries.

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?

Front-loads the essential purpose and usage in two sentences, then segments operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace) clearly. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: what is created, that the source is preserved, auth scopes, retry safety, and workspace targeting.

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 75%, so the schema documents most params. The description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the workspaceId/workspaceSlug default-override behavior ('override the default workspace configured by environment'), which the schema descriptions do not capture; only the idempotencyKey note duplicates 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a campaign') plus the exact outcome and scope ('into a fresh unpublished draft and leave the original alone'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like luca_campaigns_create, luca_campaigns_publish, and luca_campaigns_set_status without opening a 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario: 'Use it to change a live campaign without touching what is currently running.' That routes the agent well, but it does not name the concrete alternative (e.g., draft_update vs. duplicate) the way a top-tier definition would.

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