Clone ad

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the clone lands in on_hold draft state (not published), requires a two-step confirm gate, and reuses the source targeting. It does not cover hash lifetime, whether media/creatives are copied, or any rate limits.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the confirm mechanics, then the return. No filler or restatement; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the tool needn't explain return values (the brief 'Returns the new ad id' is minor redundancy). For a 3-parameter mutation at 0% schema coverage the essentials are covered, but the confirm_hash provenance — the key to the two-step protocol — is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the load. It explains confirm ('confirm=true for the gate') and gestures at confirm_hash ('two-step confirm_hash'), covering two of three parameters — but it never says where the hash comes from (a prior non-confirmed call?) which is load-bearing for the flow, and ad_id is undocumented beyond its name.

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 gives a specific verb (duplicate/clone) and resource (ad) and pins down the resulting state: 'a new on_hold draft with the same targeting.' That scope distinguishes it from create_ad, edit_ad, and get_ad without the agent needing to open the schemas, and it names the motivating scenario ('change immutable targeting').

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 states a clear use condition — 'Use to change immutable targeting' — and describes the intended flow (two-step confirm_hash, confirm=true for the gate). It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., prefer edit_ad for mutable fields), so it falls short of explicit alternatives.

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