clone_ad

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces that this is a write operation and adds the two-step confirm_hash flow plus the TG_ADS_WRITE_GATE write confirmation. It also clarifies the result is a draft, not a launched ad. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a key behavior and the confirmation requirement in just a few short lines. Every phrase earns its place and nothing repeats the schema.

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 the output schema and annotation hints, the description covers the main invocation concerns: what the tool does, the targeting behavior, and the confirmation/write-gate protocol. The only notable gap is the provenance of confirm_hash, which is hinted at via 'platform' but not fully spelled out.

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 0% schema-description coverage, the description must carry the param semantics. It gives meaning to ad_id by explaining an existing ad is duplicated, adds that targeting is copied, and interprets confirm/confirm_hash as a two-step write gate. It does not explain how to obtain the hash, but it provides useful meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource-result: 'Duplicate an ad into a new draft.' It then adds functional nuance: targeting is copied and the clone can be edited. This clearly differentiates clone_ad from sibling create_ad, edit_ad, and delete_ad.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want to duplicate an existing ad while preserving its targeting, and edit the clone afterward if you need changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is evident.

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