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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation is atomic ('All or nothing'), requires Administrator or ProjectManager, and counts toward the Free plan's 3-project cap. It also notes the return value, which no output schema supplies.

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 what gets created and how dates are handled, then constraints, then the return value and next step. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: atomicity, permission requirement, quota impact, and what the call returns. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. what a quota-exceeded or permission error looks like), which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: startDate acts as the anchor that all template dates are shifted forward from, and templateId links to list_templates. Optional fields such as lang and description are left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 (create a project from a template) and immediately scopes what that means: the whole task breakdown, milestones and dependencies, dated forward from startDate. This distinguishes it clearly from create_project and save_project_as_template in the sibling list.

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?

Gives the preceding step (templateId comes from list_templates) and the follow-up step (read its tasks with list_tasks_by_project). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_project for empty projects, so the agent must infer that split, but the workflow framing is otherwise clear.

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