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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds valuable workflow context (the dependency on list_workspaces/list_folders and the user-confirmation step) but says nothing about what is copied, permissions required, or that repeated calls create separate copies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite workflow, then the invocation guard. No filler, and the ordering matches how an agent would reason about calling it.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing invocation preconditions and destination workflow; only minor details (copy semantics, permission requirements) are absent for a 3-parameter mutation tool.

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 67% — toFolderUid and toWorkspaceUid are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit for workspace root' rule, which the description largely repeats. The undescriptioned projectUid gets no added meaning from the description either, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('a project') plus destination scope (workspace and optional folder). This clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like move_project or create_project_from_recording, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly gate-keeps invocation: 'Call this only when the user explicitly asks for a copy', and prescribes a prerequisite discovery workflow (call list_workspaces and list_folders before asking the user to choose). It also names the condition for omitting toFolderUid (workspace root).

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