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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: precisely which data is persisted vs. left out, the owner-only requirement, and the plan-based quota — all non-obvious operational facts.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action before listing inclusions, exclusions, and constraints. Efficient, though the enumeration of excluded fields is long; every clause still carries distinct 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence scope, side-effect exclusions, permissions, and quota limits, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits what the response returns, but that gap is minor.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description restates the includeMoney effect (budget and hourly rate) which the schema also states, adding little new semantics for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Saves a project's shape as a template') and goes on to enumerate exactly what the template captures. An agent can distinguish this from create_project_from_template, save_task_as_template, and rename_project_template purely from the text.

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?

Provides concrete gating conditions — 'Only the project owner' and the free/Pro template limit (1 vs unlimited) — which tell the agent whether the call can succeed. It does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over create_project_from_template, so it stops short of a full 5.

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