ghl_ad_fb_campaign_duplicate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds technical details like endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether ad sets and ads are also duplicated, or the impact on the original campaign. The added value beyond annotations is minimal.

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 concise (3 lines) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes useful technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) without being verbose. Could be slightly more informative but remains efficient.

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 duplication tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on what exactly is duplicated (e.g., whether it includes ads and ad sets), the expected response, and preconditions like campaign existence. Sibling tools exist for finer-grained duplication, so this context is important.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (campaignId and body.locationId descriptions). No additional context or examples are given.

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 'Duplicate campaign' and elaborates 'Duplicate an existing Facebook campaign'. The verb 'duplicate' and resource 'Facebook campaign' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ad or adset duplication.

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 the tool is for duplicating Facebook campaigns but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling duplication tools exist but no differentiation is offered.

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